JUDGMENT The petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales-tax Act and Central Sales-tax Act on the files of the 1st respondent. The petitioner defaulted payment of assessed tax. When recovery proceedings were initiated, the petitioner requested for the benefit of amnesty scheme. It was once accepted. But the petitioner did not pay the instalments as required. In the meanwhile the amnesty scheme was extended up to 31.3.2011. The petitioner again filed a fresh application, which was also allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay the installments. But the petitioner did not pay some of the instalments. Therefore, recovery proceedings were initiated to recover arrears of tax. This is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner's only contention is that there were some discrepancy in Ext. P8 intimation regarding the amounts to be paid and that is why the petitioner did not pay the balance instalments. In the statement filed by the 1st respondent it is submitted as follows in paragraphs 3 to 5 : "3. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner had filed an application under the amnesty scheme for settling the arrears in the year 2008. A per this application, intimation has been issued. But the petitioner failed to pay the full amount as intimated to them within the time limit prescribed. At that time, they paid a sum of Rs. 15000/- on 11.3.2009 only. Since the petitioner has not paid the amount as per the intimation, the sanction has been withdrawn. Subsequently they have paid the sum of Rs. 69471/- on 31.12.2010 and Rs. 44964/- on 31.12.2010. 4. Meanwhile the Government has extended the amnesty scheme up to 31.3.2011. Then the petitioner filed a fresh application opting the scheme. Pursuant to this, intimation dated 25.3.2011 was issued to the petitioner as per Ext. P8 on 25.3.2011. As per the said intimation they have to remit the amount on or before 31.3.2011 as provided under the statute. The said intimation served upon the petitioner on 26.3.2011. 5. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has approached the office of the first respondent in the evening, after closing time of the office on 30.3.2011 through Sri Vinod, the authorized representative of the petitioner who handed over a letter and left the place. He has not waited for the reply. 5. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has approached the office of the first respondent in the evening, after closing time of the office on 30.3.2011 through Sri Vinod, the authorized representative of the petitioner who handed over a letter and left the place. He has not waited for the reply. Immediately the 3rd respondent verified the matter and the petitioner was informed over telephone to remit the balance amount. Since there is no time for letter correspondence and also for the reason that the petitioner has to pay the amount on or before 31.3.2011. The petitioner has not responded properly to these telephone calls and not paid the amount also." The petitioner has not chosen to file a reply to controvert the same. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that the petitioner cannot be extended any further indulgence in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.