SELVAM BROILERS (P) LTD. Vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a dealer in live chicken aggrieved by the revocation of amnesty, granted for the years 2002-03 to 2004-05. The petitioner's contention is that the revocation was not notified as provided under sub-s. (6) of S. 23 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the above Writ Petition are that the petitioner applied for amnesty for the years 2002-03 to 2004-05 as per S. 23B of the K.G.S.T. Act. The same was granted and an amount of Rs. 101,16,469/-, Rs. 107,62,756/- and Rs. 137,88,828/- were due respectively for the said years. On looking at Ext. P2 order, it is evident that while the interest liability in each of these years was above Rs. 1 crore; as per the order on amnesty, petitioner could pay the principal amount along with interest of around Rs. 12 lakhs to 13 lakhs; for each of the years, to satisfy the dues under the Scheme.

(2.) Petitioner admittedly, submitted cheques as evident from Exts. P3, P3(a) and P3(b). Two cheques bearing Nos. 345853 and 345855 were presented at first in random, as can be expected of the Department which deals with innumerable such transactions. These two cheques were honoured; but all the other cheques were dishonoured. Petitioner's contention is that the said two cheques were, those given for two different assessment years and if the assessing Authority had proceeded to send the cheques for clearing, of the earlier years first, then, the petitioner's dues, at least, for the year 2002-03 would have been settled amicably. The contention obviously is raised on account of the fact that, despite issuing cheques for settlement as per the Amnesty Scheme; the balance in the account, on which the cheques were drawn, was not sufficient to cover the entire amounts for all the years; as ordered under the Scheme. If that contention is accepted, then an assessee could very well say that the Assessing Officer ought to have first send the cheques of the year in which the amounts specified was highest, since the account had sufficient amount to clear that, and not of any year which had lesser dues. The contention is base, prosaic and legally un-sustainable.

(3.) Petitioner's contention is that on that date, 31.03.2014, there was available in the account of the petitioner, amounts which could have satisfied the Amnesty Scheme for the year 2002-03 and not the other two years. In fact, when the Scheme provides for a last date for making payments, despite cheques being issued against the demand, it was the bounden duty of the assessee to ensure that the amounts, for which the cheques were issued, were retained in the petitioner's account; so as to satisfy the cheques issued for all the years.