Amnesty relief limited to developer liability, while contractor-related demand remained appealable with security confined to the balance amount.

Acceptance of an Amnesty Scheme for builder and developer liability did not render the assessment infructuous where the acceptance expressly preserved any liability arising from contractor or sub-contractor work. The impugned demand could therefore continue to the extent it related to the excluded contractor component, and the challenge to quash the entire order on the ground of infructuous proceedings was rejected. The statutory appeal was held to remain available against the surviving demand, and the appellate security condition was confined to the balance liability not covered by the amnesty benefit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether acceptance of the Amnesty Scheme rendered the assessment proceedings infructuous and required the impugned demand order to be quashed. (ii) Whether the petitioner could pursue an appeal against the impugned order and, if so, the extent of compliance required under the appellate precondition.

Issue (i): Whether acceptance of the Amnesty Scheme rendered the assessment proceedings infructuous and required the impugned demand order to be quashed.

Analysis: The acceptance under the Amnesty Scheme was conditional and applied only to the petitioner's liability as a builder and developer. The order of acceptance expressly preserved the liability, if any, arising from work done as a contractor or sub-contractor. Since the impugned order assessed liability under both heads, the proceedings could not be treated as having become infructuous merely because the amnesty was accepted for the developer component. The Court declined to set aside the order in part at that stage because the two liabilities were found to be interconnected on the facts.

Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned order on the footing that the entire proceedings had become infructuous was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could pursue an appeal against the impugned order and, if so, the extent of compliance required under the appellate precondition.

Analysis: The impugned order was held to be appealable under the statutory appellate provision. Filing an appeal was clarified not to amount to a breach of the Amnesty Scheme because the surviving dispute related to the contractor liability, which was outside the scope of the amnesty acceptance. The appellate precondition requiring security was to operate only with respect to the balance liability not covered by the amnesty benefit.

Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to file an appeal, and compliance with the appellate security requirement was confined to the balance demand of the contractor liability.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not granted on merits, but the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal with a clarification that the amnesty benefit protected only the developer liability and did not preclude appeal on the remaining contractor-related demand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an amnesty order grants relief only for a specified component of liability, assessment proceedings covering an excluded liability may continue, and the statutory appellate remedy remains available in respect of that surviving demand.

---