JUDGMENT : P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed by the Revenue, challenging order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.21935/2017, directing the assessing authority to accept petitioner's application filed under 'Kara Samadhana Scheme of 2017' ('Scheme' for short). 2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their status in the writ petition. 3. Heard Shri Vikram Huilgol, learned High Court Government Pleader for appellants and Shri K. Mallaha Rao, learned Counsel for respondent. 4. Petitioner, a registered dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act ('KVAT Act' for short) and Central Sales Tax Act ('CST Act' for short), filed it's monthly returns for March 2015 belatedly. The assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings by issuing a notice under Section 72(1) read with Section 36(2) of the KVAT Act. Petitioner submitted a reply stating that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and requested to drop penalty proceedings. 5. The assessing officer by order dated 11.04.2017 imposed a penalty of Rs.2,77,080/-. Further, by a communication dated 22.03.2017, the assessing officer informed that the benefit of the Scheme cannot be extended to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant writ petition. 6. The Hon'ble Single Judge by the order impugned has directed assessing authority to accept petitioner's application and to process the same in accordance with law. The said order is challenged by the Revenue in this writ appeal. 7. Shri Vikram Huilgol, arguing in support of this appeal, presented an interesting argument contending that, the Scheme is applicable only for the components of 'arrears of penalty and interest' relating to 'assessment/re-assessment'. He adverted to clause 1.2 of the Scheme and urged that penalty imposed upon the petitioner is not in the course of assessment or re-assessment, but, it is for belated submission of returns. 8. Shri Mallaha Rao, supporting the impugned order, contended that filing of returns is the first step leading to assessment. Therefore, penalty for delayed submission of return has to be construed as penalty imposed in assessment process. 9. It is undisputed that the penalty is imposed for delayed filing of returns by the petitioner. 8. Shri Mallaha Rao, supporting the impugned order, contended that filing of returns is the first step leading to assessment. Therefore, penalty for delayed submission of return has to be construed as penalty imposed in assessment process. 9. It is undisputed that the penalty is imposed for delayed filing of returns by the petitioner. Clause 1.2 of the Scheme contained in Order No.FD 24 CSL 2017 dated 31.03.2017 reads as follows:- "1.2 "Arrears of penalty and interest" means all kinds of penalties levied and all kinds of interest accrued under the provisions of the KST and CST Acts relating to all the assessment years ending on 31/03/2005 and all kinds of penalties levied and all kinds of interest accrued under the provisions of the KVAT Act and CST Act relating to the tax periods for all the years commencing from 01/04/2005 upto 31/03/2016 and all kinds of penalties levied and all kinds of interest accrued under the provisions of the KTEG Act/KTPTC & E Act/KTL Act/KAIT Act/KET Act relating to the assessment/reassessment for all the years upto 31/03/2016 and remaining unpaid upto 15/03/2017. This shall also include all kinds of penalties leviable and interest accrued till the date of filing of application by the dealer or person or proprietor, as the case may be, under the Scheme." (emphasis by us) 10. The emphasized portion of clause 1.2 extracted supra, makes it clear that the arrears of penalty includes 'all kinds of penalties' accrued till the date of filing the application. Thus, the intention of the Revenue is to extend the benefit in respect of all kinds of penalties. Therefore, in our view, the expression 'all kinds of penalties' must be construed to include penalty imposed for delayed filing also. Therefore, it must be held as penalty 'till the date of filing'. 11. Viewed from an alternative dimension, it is to be noted that filing of returns originates the process of assessment. A dealer is required to file returns under Section 35 of the KVAT Act. Section 38 contemplates deemed assessment of returns. Thus, logically every return is normally classifiable as 'deemed to have been assessed'. Therefore, filing of return must be held as a process related to assessment. On this premise also, penalty imposed for delayed filing of returns must also be eligible for consideration under the Scheme. Therefore, in our view, any other interpretation would be incongruous. 12. Thus, logically every return is normally classifiable as 'deemed to have been assessed'. Therefore, filing of return must be held as a process related to assessment. On this premise also, penalty imposed for delayed filing of returns must also be eligible for consideration under the Scheme. Therefore, in our view, any other interpretation would be incongruous. 12. In view of above discussion, we see no error in the impugned order. 13. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 14. In view of dismissal of the writ appeal, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and the same are accordingly disposed of. Appeal dismissed. We make no order as to costs.