S. Vijayan v. Commissioner of State Goods and Services Taxes Department and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Dinesh Kumar Singh
- Judgment Date
- 2024-02-26
- Court Decision / Holding
- W.P.(C) No.3661/2022 dismissed; Amnesty Scheme does not contemplate adjustment; once an order under Amnesty Scheme is passed, the authority becomes functus officio and cannot modify the order.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- S. Vijayan
Respondents
- Commissioner of State Goods and Services Taxes Department, Tax Towers, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Special Circle, State Goods and Service Taxes Department, Kollam (now re-designated as Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Special Circle, State Goods and Service Taxes Department, Kollam)
- The Deputy Tahsildar(RR), Taluk Office, Adoor
- The Village Officer, Erathu Village, Adoor
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sergi Joseph Thomas (Advocate)
Counsels for Respondents
- • Ms Jasmine M M, Government Pleader
Case Synopsis & Summary
The present writ petition challenges Ext. P6 series of Revenue Recovery notices issued under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act for arrears in respect of several financial years, as stated in the memorandum of writ petition. The petitioner, S. Vijayan, is a registered dealer under both the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and the Central Sales Tax Act. In 2020 the Government announced Amnesty Scheme 2020 through Finance Bill 2020 and Circular No. 2/2020 dated 04.04.2020, offering settlement at 40% of the total arrears. The petitioner submitted an application on 29.11.2020 under the Amnesty Scheme, and by an order dated 12.02.2021 he was directed to pay Rs. 1,28,373 against an outstanding Rs. 3,20,930 (40% of arrears). The petitioner later sought to adjust Rs. 5 lakhs allegedly due to him against the amount settled and requested the balance to be refunded; the 2nd respondent did not act on this request, while Revenue Recovery notices continued. The Amnesty Scheme does not contemplate adjustments; if any amount is due, the petitioner may pursue a remedy. The petitioner relied on a prior decision, M/s Steel Exchange India Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner, but the court distinguished it on the facts, noting that the Amnesty Scheme does not permit such adjustment. The petition is dismissed.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- functus officio
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that Amnesty Scheme 2020 offers settlement at 40% of the outstanding arrears; he submitted an application on 29.11.2020 and an order dated 12.02.2021 required payment of Rs.1,28,373 against Rs.3,20,930. He later sought to adjust Rs.5 lakhs allegedly due against the settled amount and demanded refund of the balance; he relies on the decision in M/s Steel Exchange India Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner to argue that adjustment under the Amnesty Scheme can be permissible.
Contentions of Respondents
The Amnesty Scheme does not contemplate any adjustment; once an order under the Amnesty Scheme is passed, the authority becomes functus officio and cannot modify it. No amount is due to the petitioner as Rs.5 lakhs has been credited; the petitioner did not raise such a claim before the order was passed; the petitioner must pursue a proper remedy if any amount is due.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| M/s Steel Exchange India Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner | W.P.(C) No.14031/2020 | Distinguished | The petitioner relied on this decision to permit adjustment under the Amnesty Scheme; the present court distinguishes it on facts and holds that the Amnesty Scheme does not contemplate such adjustment. |
| The Assistant Commissioner v. M/s Steel Exchange India Ltd | W.A. No.189/2021 | Mentioned Only | Division Bench affirmed the Steel Exchange decision; cited for context but not controlling in the present decision. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against S. Vijayan v. Commissioner of State Goods and Services Taxes Department and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.