Court dismisses writ petition and denies Amnesty Scheme benefit due to non-compliance. Future applications can still be reviewed.

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that consideration of Ext.P1 application for assessment orders was unnecessary as the orders had already been issued. Additionally, Ext.P4 application for benefit under the Amnesty Scheme was denied due to the petitioner's non-compliance with the scheme's conditions, leading to the revocation of the amnesty facility. The court emphasized that its decision did not prevent authorities from reviewing any future applications meeting eligibility criteria.

---

---

Issues:
1. Consideration of Ext.P1 application for assessment orders.
2. Consideration of Ext.P4 application for benefit under Amnesty Scheme.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a company resulting from the amalgamation of five sick industrial units, sought consideration of Ext.P1 application for assessment orders. The government pleader informed that the assessment orders requested in Ext.P1 were already issued to the petitioner after the writ petition was filed. Therefore, this part of the prayer does not require further consideration.

2. Regarding Ext.P4, it was an application for benefit under the Amnesty Scheme for settling liabilities under the KGST Act. The statement filed by the 1st respondent indicated that the petitioner was advised to settle dues under the scheme but failed to comply with the prescribed procedures. Despite being given the opportunity to settle the outstanding dues in four monthly installments, the petitioner did not make any payments. Consequently, the amnesty facility was revoked on 9/10/09 due to the petitioner's non-compliance with the scheme's conditions.

3. The court noted that since the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme was already extended to the petitioner and subsequently revoked due to non-compliance, it cannot direct consideration of the Ext.P4 application seeking the same relief. Therefore, the court ruled out ordering consideration of Ext.P4 as well.

4. The writ petition was dismissed. However, the court clarified that its judgment would not prevent the authorities from considering any subsequent application made by the petitioner in accordance with the law, provided the petitioner meets the eligibility criteria for the same.

---