Settlement scheme limits on State sales tax proceedings and revisional jurisdiction under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.

A settlement scheme confined to specified Parliamentary tax enactments does not, by implication, bar reopening or revisional proceedings under a State sales tax statute, because its conclusive effect is limited to orders passed under the Scheme and the enactments it expressly covers. Sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act falls within the State legislative field, so the Scheme could not be extended to those assessments. The Court also noted that revisional power under section 35 remains subject to statutory limits and that prima facie observations at the revisional stage do not, by themselves, deprive the authority of jurisdiction; the assessee's defences remained open for independent consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 barred reopening or revisional proceedings under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 in relation to the appellant's sales tax assessments; (ii) Whether the Deputy Commissioner's suo motu revisional action under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 barred reopening or revisional proceedings under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 in relation to the appellant's sales tax assessments.

Analysis: The Scheme was enacted to settle arrears under the enactments covered by it, and the conclusive effect under section 90(3) operates in relation to the order passed under the Scheme and the enactments contemplated therein. The definitions of direct tax enactment and indirect tax enactment are confined to the Parliamentary enactments specified in the Scheme. The Court held that the Scheme cannot be extended, by implication, to sales tax assessments under a State enactment, as sales tax falls within the exclusive legislative field of the State Legislature under article 246 and Entry 54 of List II. Article 286(3) did not assist the appellant because it only enables Parliament to impose restrictions by a specific law, which the Scheme was not intended to do for State sales tax laws.

Conclusion: The Scheme did not preclude proceedings under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and the appellant's contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Deputy Commissioner's suo motu revisional action under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 35 confers revisional power on the Deputy Commissioner subject to statutory limitations and procedural safeguards. The Court held that the observations made at the revisional stage were only prima facie and did not foreclose the appellant's defences. All contentions remained open before the competent authority, and the authority was expected to consider the matter independently on the merits.

Conclusion: The revisional action was not held to be without jurisdiction, and the appellant's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both substantive grounds, and the assessment and revisional proceedings were allowed to continue in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A settlement scheme confined to specified Parliamentary tax enactments cannot, by implication, override or reopen proceedings under a State sales tax statute, and prima facie revisional observations do not by themselves deprive the statutory revisional authority of jurisdiction.

---