MARTIN & HARRIS PVT. LTD Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With respect to the assessment of the petitioner for the year 1995-96, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had remanded the matter through exhibit P7, to the assessing authority for fresh disposal, in accordance with the observations contained therein. Before finalisation of the revised assessment the petitioner had opted for payment of arrears under the Amnesty Scheme. The finalisation of revised assessment was considered by the fast track team, the second respondent herein and the assessment was finalised as per exhibit P9 invoking the provisions of section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Subsequently on the basis of the amount finalised through exhibit P9, the amnesty was allowed to the petitioner as per exhibit P10. According to the petitioner exhibit P9 assessment was completed without issuing any notice and without giving credit to the payments already made, as well as without considering amount due for refund to the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner had submitted exhibit P11 petition seeking rectification of exhibit P9 order, under the provisions of section 43 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Pending consideration and disposal of the rectification application, exhibit P12 notice is now issued proposing to revoke the Amnesty Scheme alleging that the petitioner had failed to make payment of the amounts allowed under the settlement.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that exhibit P9 assessment is unsustainable in view of the fact that it is issued totally in violation of the provisions contained in section 17D. A Division Bench of this court while considering validity of section 17D had quashed similar assessments and directed fresh consideration of the matter, after strict compliance of the provisions contained in section 17D. The observations of the Division Bench in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, 2011 37 VST 567 (W.A. No. 1714 of 2009 and connected cases) are as follows (page 580 in 37 VST) :

(3.) In view of the directions contained in the judgment of the Division Bench, quoted above (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, 2011 37 VST 567, I am of the opinion that exhibit P9 is not sustainable. Therefore exhibit P9 is hereby quashed and the second respondent is directed to issue fresh orders in view of the directions contained in the judgment of the Division Bench in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, 2011 37 VST 567.