P.V. NARAYANAN Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the defaulter of the dues under the KGST Act, a Bank loan, telephone dues, Central Government dues etc. To recover the amounts, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated. While so, an Amnesty Scheme was introduced by the Government in the year 2008 and pursuant to Ext.P1 order, the petitioner made an application for the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. The application was allowed and he was issued Ext.P2 order where he was directed to pay the amount as indicated therein. However, it was clarified in the said order that the amounts specified therein was subject to the confirmation of credit and further verification of the records, if found necessary.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, before issuing Ext.P2 order, Rs.58,26,486/- was already recovered from him and therefore he submitted Ext.P3 application requesting that the recovery amount be transferred to the sales tax department in settlement of his liability under Ext.P2. On receipt of the said representation, the 2nd respondent issued Exts.P4 and P6 requests to the 1st respondent requesting for details. Response was not forthcoming and in the circumstances, this writ petition was filed.

(3.) ACCORDING to the respondents, total amount to be collected from the petitioner towards the sales tax was Rs.71,25,548/- along with interest and collection charges and that out of the said liability, only Rs.42,35,151/- has been recovered. This means that according to the respondents, the liability was still outstanding and therefore the petitioner should have paid the amount as per Ext.P2. Ext.P2 itself shows that the same was subject to review if found necessary. This therefore means that even if such a reservation was made in the order, petitioner should have made payment in terms thereof. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pay the amount as provided in Ext.P2 and the scheme has also lapsed. Therefore, he lost the benefit of Ext.P2 entitling the respondents to recover the balance amount due from the petitioner in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the prayer sought in the writ petition cannot now be allowed. Writ petition is dismissed.