Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) on 9 June, 2009

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) on 9 June, 2009

Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 13753 of 2009(L)


1. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE)
                       ...       Respondent

2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

4. SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

5. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,

6. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

7. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :09/06/2009

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
               ........................................................................
                     W.P.(C) No. 13753 OF 2009
               .........................................................................
                         Dated this the 9th June, 2009


                                  J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is mainly aggrieved of denial of the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme, placing reliance on 'Clause 2' of Ext. P6 Circular issued by the 5th respondent stating that the benefit is available only to the Public Sector Undertakings owned by the State Government and not to the Public Sector Undertakings owned by the Central Government, which Clause, hence, is sought to be annulled . The petitioner is also challenging the vires of sub section 5 of Section 17D of the KGST Act as ultra vires of the Constitution. The petitioner further seeks for a clarification, so as to enable the petitioner to avail the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme notified by the Government by settling the tax arrears by remitting 50% of the tax for the assessment year 1999-2000 (KGST as well as CST.).

2. The respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed a counter W.P.(C) No. 13753 OF 2009 2 affidavit rebutting the various averments and allegations raised by the petitioner . However, the challenge raised by the petitioner as against sub section 5 of Section 17D of the KGST Act is no more open to challenge in view of the authoritative pronouncement of law by a Division Bench of this Court in Viani Papers vs. Fast Track Team [2008(2) KLT 511].

3. With regard to the benefit prayed for by the petitioner for availing the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme and not to discriminate the petitioner just because of the fact that it is a Central Government Undertaking, the learned Government Pleader submits, with reference to the Circular No.6 of 2009 dated 22.05.2009, that it has been clarified by the fifth respondent/Commissioner that the benefit of the Scheme will be available to both the State as well as the Central Government Public Sector Undertakings. This being the position, nothing further remains to be considered in the present Writ Petition, but for recording the above submission that the petitioner will be entitled to avail the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme, as notified by the Government of Kerala.

W.P.(C) No. 13753 OF 2009 3

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the filing of the Writ Petition, the departmental authorities have already accepted the petition filed by the petitioner for obtaining the benefit under the Scheme as per the order dated 05.06.2009.

In the above facts and circumstances, the position as aforesaid is recorded and the Writ Petition is closed accordingly.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court