Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 605 (RAJ)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. JAIPUR UDYOG LIMITED

2015-03-10

PRAKASH GUPTA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
Judgment 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 15.12.2014, by which he has disposed of the writ petition with direction to the State to issue 'No Dues Certificate' to the petitioner, and to withdraw the attachment proceedings, if any pending. 3. Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the petitioner's application under the scheme introduced by the Tax Division, Finance Department of the Government of Rajasthan, namely 'Amnesty Scheme 2009', which came into effect from 15.02.2009 and was upto 31.12.2009, was squarely covered, and thus having deposited the entire demand, the petitioner was entitled to the waiver of interest and penalty. 4. Learned Single Judge did not agree with the submission of learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan that since the petitioner had not withdrawn the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR), it was not entitled to the benefit of 'Amnesty Scheme-2009'. Learned Single Judge held that the appeal before the AAIFR is provided and was filed on various issues and that payment of sales tax dues was one of the components. The pendency of the appeal in AAIFR did not make the petitioner ineligible for grant of amnesty from interest and penalty. 5. We have examined the provisions of the Amnesty Scheme2009, dated 06.02.2009. Clause (4) of the Scheme provides for eligibility. There is no provision in the eligibility clause for the scheme, nor there is any condition to withdraw all the cases for being eligible for amnesty, which includes waiver of interest and penalty. The reliance on clause (ix) of Form AS-1, for the proof of withdrawal of the case, by itself cannot be treated as a condition for eligibility under the Scheme. The proof of withdrawal of the case does not qualify as to pendency of which type and nature of cases, will disentitle the applicant from waiver of interest and penalty. 6. The reliance on clause (ix) of Form AS-1, for the proof of withdrawal of the case, by itself cannot be treated as a condition for eligibility under the Scheme. The proof of withdrawal of the case does not qualify as to pendency of which type and nature of cases, will disentitle the applicant from waiver of interest and penalty. 6. On a close examination of the Scheme, we find, from the perusal of the definition clause, that the withdrawal under clause 6(d) of the Scheme relates to cases in which penalty has been imposed for misuse of any declaration form, or for unaccounted goods, and that if the dealer/person deposits 50% of the penalty amount along with tax, and withdraws the case from the concerned Court/Forum, the remaining amount of the interest and penalty thereupon upto the date shall be waived. Similar conditions were provided in respect of clauses 6(a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Scheme. 7. We do not find that the Scheme provides for any such condition, which would have made the appellant ineligible, if he had not withdrawn the appeal from the AAIFR. Firstly, we agree with the finding of learned Single Judge that filing of the appeal in AAIFR, does not relate to the dispute with regard to any tax, for which the Amnesty Scheme2009, was announced, and Secondly the appeal in AAIFR does not fall in any of the categories which are included in clause 6 of the Scheme. In all such cases which relate to taxes, the applicant becomes eligible under the Scheme, if he deposits 50% of the penalty amount and withdraws the case. There are no provisions in the Sick Industries (Special Provisions) Act for levy of penalty by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), involved in the appeal in the AAIFR, to be paid to the extent of 50% and for withdrawal of the appeal to make the applicant eligible for Amnesty Scheme-2009. Learned Single Judge has not committed any error in disposing of the writ petition. 8. Shri R.B. Mathur, appearing for the appellants, states that one of the drafts deposited by the respondent towards demand, was returned on the ground that the Amnesty Scheme-2009, is not applicable to the respondent, but now since the High Court has held that the respondent was eligible under the Amnesty Scheme-2009, the amount in the original draft may be deposited. Shri R.B. Mathur, appearing for the appellants, states that one of the drafts deposited by the respondent towards demand, was returned on the ground that the Amnesty Scheme-2009, is not applicable to the respondent, but now since the High Court has held that the respondent was eligible under the Amnesty Scheme-2009, the amount in the original draft may be deposited. He states that an amount of Rs.18,55,906/- (Rs. Eighteen lacs fifty five thousand nine hundred six), on account of sister concern M/s Mukul Trading Pvt. Ltd., is liable to be paid to the Department. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not dispute that the demand draft was returned, and thus, we direct that the amount, as mentioned above, shall be paid to the Department by preparing a fresh demand draft of the amount, within a period of 30 days from today. On deposit of the amount, the 'No Dues Certificate' will be issued to the respondent, and the attachment proceedings shall be withdrawn. 10. The Special Appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.