TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Petitioner and it may please be held that the Petitioner is entitled to remission of interest and penalty since tax amount has already been paid by the Petitioner; B. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Respondents to forthwith grant benefit of amnesty scheme to the Petitioner and grant waiver of interest and penalty under the CST Act; C. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the bank attachment order (annexed at Annexure K) as being wholly without jurisdiction and illegal; D. Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the first appellate authority to restore the first appeal of the Petitioner for the year 2012-13 under the CST Act and also revive the stay order which already granted earlier. E. Pending notice, admission and final hearing of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount of Rs. 38,03,216/-. 5.7 As the petitioner had already paid an amount of Rs. 48,75,000/- prior to announcement of the amnesty scheme and even prior to assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the amount as asked for by the officer of the respondent under the amnesty scheme was not paid and, therefore, the respondent disposed of the application submitted by the petitioner vide order dated 11.05.2022. 5.8 It is further stated that thereafter, the bank account of the petitioner came to be attached by an order dated 20.06.2022 for recovery of the alleged outstanding dues under the Act again without giving credit of tax amount already paid by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, made representation, however, no response was given and, therefore, the petitioner has preferred present petition. 6. Learned advocate, Mr. Sheth appearing for the petitioner has referred to the documents, which are placed on record. It is submitted that as per the amnesty scheme, an amount of tax paid by the concerned applicant beneficiary prior to filing of the application under the scheme is required to be taken into consideration as per the amnesty scheme. It is further stated that if....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y this Court in case of Safal Developers & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. while passing an order dated 22.04.2016 and 27.04.2016 in Special Civil Application No.1338/2016. Learned advocate has more particularly placed reliance upon the observations made by this Court in Paragraph Nos. 10 and 13 of the said order. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that the impugned communication be quashed and set aside and thereby the respondent authority be directed to grant benefit of the scheme to the petitioner and the order of attachment be quashed and set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Trivedi has referred to the averments made in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get remission as per the amnesty scheme for the reason that initially the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 48,75,000/- on 01.07.2015 at the time of spot inspection and assessment and, thereafter, the order of assessment has been passed in the year 2017 and, therefore, the said amount was not considered by the concerned competent authority at the time of passing Assessment Order. It is also pointed out that the office of the Dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., therefore, the appellant authority has granted stay on 25.05.2017 in favour of the petitioner against the recovery. 11. It further transpires from the record that in the year 2019, the scheme was announced by the Government of Gujarat and as the petitioner was eligible to get the benefit of the amnesty scheme, an application was submitted, in which, it was specifically pointed out by the petitioner that against the tax liability of Rs. 38,03,216/-, the petitioner had paid tax of Rs. 48,75,000/-, inspite of that, the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the concerned respondent authority. 12. Now only contention taken by learned AGP appearing for the respondents on the basis of the affidavit in reply is that as the concerned deponent is subordinate to the higher authority, which had passed the order of assessment, he would not be in a position to consider the payment of Rs. 48,75,000/- paid by the petitioner even prior to the order of assessment was passed and, therefore, remission under the scheme was not granted to the petitioner. 13. At this stage, we would like to refer to the order passed by this Court in case of Safal Developers (supra), wherein this Co....