TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deposited 'on account' pursuant to orders of the appellate authority ? (ii) Is the final quantification of the amount (after appropriation) for settlement as per the provisions of the Amnesty Scheme under the Act open to challenge after payment by the assessee under article 226 of the Constitution of India ?" The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement and is a dealer registered under the Act on the rolls of the first respondent and the relevant assessment year is 1998-99. The dispute arose in the appropriation of a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000 deposited pending appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and a sum of Rs. 1,80,99,000 deposited pending appeal before the Kerala Sales....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondition that the petitioner remits Rs. 2,00,00,000 for 1998-99 and Rs. 5,00,000 for 1999-2000 and furnishes security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the assessing authority within a period of one month from the date of this order." (emphasis1 supplied) Similarly exhibit P5 order of stay was passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 39(6) of the Act and the operative part of the same reads as follows: "Upon hearing both sides and also considering the averments in the affidavits filed in support of these petitions, we are of the view that it will be just and proper to grant stay as prayed for by the petitioner for both the assessment years on condition that he shall pay 50 per cent. (fifty) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....djudication and without pre judice. I am fortified in this view by the decisions in Ideal Trading Company v. Sales Tax Officer [2010] 18 KTR 106 (Ker) [FB] and Mangilal S. Jain's case [2002] 257 ITR 31 (Karn) about which reference shall be made later. There is no warrant for not appropriating the sum of Rs. 1,80,99,000 towards the component of tax even though the same was deposited "on account" involuntarily in obedience to specific orders. 5. The respondents asserted that whatever remittances made by the petitioner irrespective of the term of deposit could be appropriated first towards interest and then only towards principal under section 55C of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Joseph v. State of Kerala [2000]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....September 19, 2009, October 19, 2009 and November 17, 2009 for fear of the time being run out and the benefit lost thereby. The quantification of the amount for settlement as per the Amnesty Scheme under the Act is open to judicial review under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner can certainly work out its rights within the four corners of the Amnesty Scheme and the only embargo is that it cannot take advantage of subsequent judicial pronouncements or departmental orders. Similarly the respondents cannot resile from the settlement and claim the amounts waived under the Amnesty Scheme by initiation of fresh proceedings and there is no total bar for entertainment of a writ petition for limited reliefs. The law in this reg....