JOYAL T. THOMAS, PROPRIETOR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In as much as all these O.T. Revisions involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.

(2.) The revision petitioner is stated to be a manufacturer and seller of granite metals. For the various assessment years involved in the instant revisions (2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2014-15), the assessment under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act were completed based on the option for the compounded scheme exercised by the petitioner. The assessing authority however, recomputed the compounded tax payable in terms of sec. 25A and passed an order demanding differential tax. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the first Appellate Authority was dismissed and hence the petitioner preferred second appeal before the appellate Tribunal.

(3.) While the said appeals were pending before the Tribunal, the Government of Kerala announced an amnesty scheme for settlement of arrears and the petitioner opted for the benefit of the amnesty scheme in respect of all the assessment years aforementioned after withdrawing the appeals pending before the appellate Tribunal for the said assessment years. It is not in dispute that the applications for amnesty preferred by the petitioner for the various assessment years, were scrutinized and accepted by the department and the petitioner was duly intimated of the amounts that he was required to pay under the amnesty scheme for a complete settlement of the disputes pending with the department for the assessment years aforementioned. It would appear however, that the petitioner could not pay the settlement amounts intimated by the department and consequently, he stood to lose the benefit of the amnesty scheme, as well.