Supreme Court grants appeal, sets aside High Court decisions, directs parties to appellate authority for further proceedings.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decisions of the High Court and the appellate authority. The appellant was granted the opportunity to restore the appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Appeals to be heard on its merits. Both parties were directed to appear before the appellate authority for further proceedings in accordance with the law. The appellant was also given liberty to seek interim relief, and the appeal was allowed with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of restoration of a statutory appeal before the appellate authority under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, after the appellant withdrew the appeal to avail of the Amnesty scheme but was unsuccessful in doing so.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Appeal Restoration Application:
The appellant, a registered dealer under the KVAT Act, had his registration cancelled by the Sales Tax Officer, Chavakkad. The appellant challenged this order before the Joint Commissioner of Appeals and also contested an assessment order imposing tax liability. To benefit from an Amnesty scheme, the appellant withdrew the appeal pending before the appellate authority but failed to avail of the scheme. Subsequently, the appellant sought restoration of the appeal, which was rejected by the appellate authority on the grounds of not raising valid grounds. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging this decision, leading to the appellant filing an Intra Court Appeal which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court.

2. Appellate Authority's Decision:
The Supreme Court observed that the appellant withdrew the appeal to comply with the condition of no pending proceedings under the Amnesty scheme. However, since the appellant could not benefit from the scheme, there was no bar to seeking restoration of the appeal. As the appeal was a statutory remedy, the appellant had the right to withdraw it as a pre-condition for the Amnesty scheme. The Court held that the appellant should have been permitted to seek restoration of the appeal by the appellate authority and the High Court to be heard on merits.

3. Court's Decision and Directions:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the appellate authority, restoring the appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Appeals. Both parties were directed to appear before the appellate authority for the appeal to be heard on merits and disposed of in accordance with the law. The appellant was granted liberty to seek interim relief, with any pending applications being disposed of. The appeal was allowed with no costs awarded.

Separate Judgment:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.

---