JUDGMENT Harisankar V. Menon, J. [WP(C) Nos.17130/2017 and 22262/2020] These two writ petitions essentially call into question the manner in which certain payments made by the petitioner are to be treated while considering the petitioner's application for Amnesty. 2. The petitioner, an assessee under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, KVAT ‘Act’) claims to be dealing in margarine. There were certain disputes with respect to the tax payable on the sale of margarine by the petitioner within the State of Kerala. While the petitioner took the stand that margarine was taxable only at the rate of 5%, the Department took the stand that the same is assessable at the higher rate of 12.5% /13.5% / 14.5%. Assessments were also finalized accordingly for the various assessment years at the higher rates as above. The assessments at the higher rate were questioned before this Court and the matter stood decided against the petitioner by Ext.P5 judgment produced in W.P(C) No.17130 of 2017. The said judgment stood confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court, on account of which, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court. When coercive steps were taken for the realization of the dues, the petitioner sought for stay before the Apex Court by filing an appropriate application. By Ext.P7, the Apex Court ordered interim stay “on deposit of Rs.20 crores within 8 weeks’ time”. The petitioner remitted the amount of Rs.20 crores along with Ext.P8 covering letter, to the Assessing Authority. The Special Leave Petitions were finally dismissed by Ext.P9 judgment dated 30.09.2016. Though review petitions were filed before this Court, by Ext.P10 judgment dated 04.01.2017, the petitions were rejected on the ground of delay, refusing to condone the same. 3. The assessment for the year 2013-14 stood completed by Ext.P11, produced in W.P(C)No.17130/2017. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under Section 55 of the KVAT Act before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and voluntarily remitted 30% of the dispute, amounting to Rs.1,48,15,905/- as provided under Rule 72A of the KVAT Rules. 4. Later, when coercive proceedings were taken for the realization of arrears, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No.17130 of 2017 (captioned writ petition) and sought for stay of recovery proceedings, pointing out that the Government has come out with an amnesty Scheme for settlement of arrears. 4. Later, when coercive proceedings were taken for the realization of arrears, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No.17130 of 2017 (captioned writ petition) and sought for stay of recovery proceedings, pointing out that the Government has come out with an amnesty Scheme for settlement of arrears. This Court, while admitting this writ petition on 24.05.2017, passed the following interim order: “Admit. GP takes notice for R1 to R5. Notice by speed post to R6. Post on 3.7.2017. There will be an interim stay as prayed for on condition that the petitioner pays an amount of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- to the respondent within one month. It is made clear that the said amount of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- shall be treated as a deposit with the respondent and appropriation of the same to any account shall not be made without getting further orders from this Court. The above arrangement is for the purposes of deciding whether the amount paid by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order can be adjusted towards any liability of the petitioner under the amnesty scheme which he proposes to avail.” (underlining supplied) The petitioner has remitted the above sum of Rs.7.5 crores in two installments on 20.07.2017 and 29.07.2017. 5. Thus, the following amounts have been remitted by the petitioner towards the arrears payable against various orders. (i) Rs.20,00,00,000/- as per Ext.P8. (ii) Rs.1,48,15,905/- as per Ext.P12 being 30% of the disputed amount for A.Y. 2013-14. (iii) Rs.7,50,00,000/- as per interim order dated 24.05.2017 in W.P.(C) No.17130 of 2017. Total Rs.28,98,15,905/- 6. Later, when the Government came with a fresh Amnesty Scheme in 2017, the petitioner opted for the said benefits by presenting Ext.P27 application. In the above application, the petitioner specifically pointed out the three payments made as above, in column No.6. 7. A fresh Scheme was introduced in the year 2020, as evidenced by Ext.P9 produced along with W.P(C) No.22262 of 2020. The petitioner again opted for the said benefits by filing appropriate applications. By Ext.P11, the Assessing Authority has issued a notice under Section 10 of the Kerala Finance Act, 2020 proposing to adjust the payments made as above towards the arrears payable under the various assessment orders. The petitioner again opted for the said benefits by filing appropriate applications. By Ext.P11, the Assessing Authority has issued a notice under Section 10 of the Kerala Finance Act, 2020 proposing to adjust the payments made as above towards the arrears payable under the various assessment orders. The petitioner filed a detailed reply pointing out that the payments already made as above, be properly appropriated as cases of “deposits” and thereafter settled towards the dues under the Amnesty Scheme, in which event, there will be excess payments which would have to be refunded to the petitioner. 8. It is in the above circumstances that the captioned writ petitions are filed by the petitioner. In W.P(C)No.17130 of 2017, the petitioner has mainly sought for the following reliefs: “(cd) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent to return a sum of Rs.7,50,00,000/- which was deposited by the petitioner pursuant the interim order of this Hon'ble Court dated 24.5.2017 as evidence by Ext P23 and Ext P24. (ce) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent to return/refund an excess sum of Rs. 3,75,96,181 which will be available with the Department after adjusting the tax arrears against the deposits of Rs.21,50,63,701/- in terms of Section 31A of KVAT Act.” In WP(C) No.22262 of 2020, the main prayers made by the petitioner are as under: b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order forbearing the 1st Respondent from appropriating / adjusting the deposit of Rs.7,50,00,000/- made by the petitioner pursuant to Ext P4 -- interim order, for calculating the tax arrears under Section 10(8) of the Kerala Finance Act 2020; (c) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st Respondent to process Ext. P10 - amnesty application by reckoning the deposits of Rs.20,00,00,000/- (deposit made as per Ext. P3), and Rs.1,48,15,905/- (as per Ext. P1 towards 30% of the disputed amount for Ay- 2013-14) alone within reasonable time period as may be prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.” 9. I have heard Sri.Tarun Gulati, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, instructed by Si.R.Jayakrishna and Sri.Muhammed Rafiq, the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for the respondents herein. 10. P3), and Rs.1,48,15,905/- (as per Ext. P1 towards 30% of the disputed amount for Ay- 2013-14) alone within reasonable time period as may be prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.” 9. I have heard Sri.Tarun Gulati, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, instructed by Si.R.Jayakrishna and Sri.Muhammed Rafiq, the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for the respondents herein. 10. Sri.Gulati, the learned Senior Counsel, contends as under: (i) With reference to the Amnesty Scheme produced as Ext.P9 in the 2nd writ petition, he contends that the payments made by the petitioner referred to above can only be treated as “deposits” and cannot be set off against the tax/interest liability under any circumstances. (ii) He relies on the interim order dated 24.05.2017 in W.P(C) No.17130 of 2017 to contend that the payment of Rs.7.50 Crores made, has not been appropriated till date, since appropriation cannot be done without getting orders from this Court. (iii) Therefore, he submits that the total amount payable under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 would only be Rs.20,63,81,807/- and the amount payable under the Scheme at 40% is Rs.8,29,4,1505/-. He, therefore, points out that substantial excess payments are retained with the Department. However, he limits the prayers in the writ petition with reference to the refund of Rs.7.50 crores and Rs.3,75,96,181/- as prayed for in W.P(C) No.17130 of 2017. (iv) He also relies on various judgments in support of his arguments. 11. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), Sri.Muhammed Rafiq would contend that: (i) The petitioner originally applied for Amnesty benefits under the 2017 Scheme. The 2017 Scheme did not contain any non-obstante clause with respect to the payments already effected and their treatment qua the provisions of the Act. Therefore, whatever amounts paid by the petitioner are to be adjusted to the accrued interest, and only if there is any balance remaining unadjusted, can the same be set off against tax. (ii) He invites the attention of this Court to an order dated 27.7.2017 by which the amnesty under the 2017 Scheme was originally accepted. By the said order, the payment of Rs.20 crores effected by the petitioner was adjusted towards tax. But insofar as the said adjustment was incorrect, the afore order was suo motu cancelled/set aside for fresh disposal by the superior authority. By the said order, the payment of Rs.20 crores effected by the petitioner was adjusted towards tax. But insofar as the said adjustment was incorrect, the afore order was suo motu cancelled/set aside for fresh disposal by the superior authority. Though the petitioner had challenged the suo motu action as above, dated 16.11.2017, by filing W.P. (C) No.40713 of 2017, the said writ petition was later withdrawn by the petitioner. In the light of the above, he points out that the application filed under the 2017 Scheme is pending even as of now. (iii) By pointing out the pendency of the 2017 application, he contends that the petitioner may not be entitled to benefits under the 2020 Scheme since the earlier application has not been disposed of. (iv) With reference to the provisions of the 2020 Scheme, he relies on the provisions of sub-section (1) to Section 10 of the Finance Act, 2020 providing for the Amnesty benefit and contends that on account of the non-obstante clause, the provisions of the KVAT Act, SGST Act and also the directions in judgments/decree/order of the courts, Tribunals/appellate authority are not applicable and therefore, the petitioner may not be entitled to any benefits by virtue of the interim orders pursuant to which various claims have been raised as regards adjustments. He also points out that the 2020 Scheme has already expired, and at present, the 2024 Scheme is in operation and therefore, the petitioner may not be entitled to any relief. According to him, the petitioner may have to withdraw the application under the 2017 Scheme and make a fresh application under the 2024 Scheme. (v) There is no scope for equitable consideration while interpreting Amnesty provisions and hence, the designated authority could not be called upon to act beyond the Scheme. (vi) Appropriation of payments made can only be with reference to the provisions of Section 91 of the KVAT Act, which is automatic and going by the provisions of the Scheme, no refund is visualised under any circumstances. (vii) The provisions of Section 10(8) of the Scheme are prospective in operation and hence, the same cannot be a tool for unsettling the demands/payments under Section 91 of the KVAT Act. 12. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records. 13. (vii) The provisions of Section 10(8) of the Scheme are prospective in operation and hence, the same cannot be a tool for unsettling the demands/payments under Section 91 of the KVAT Act. 12. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records. 13. The following questions arise for consideration in this writ petition; (i) Can the petitioner maintain an application for amnesty under the 2020 Scheme when the application filed under the 2017 Scheme, is still pending? (ii) Are the payments effected by the petitioner, as noticed in paragraph 5 above, to be appropriated with reference to the provisions of Section 91 of the KVAT Act or with reference to the provisions of the Amnesty Scheme, 2020? (iii) Is the petitioner entitled to any refund? 14. The first issue to be considered is as to whether the petitioner can maintain an application for amnesty under the 2020 Scheme since, it had already filed a separate application under the 2017 Scheme, which is still pending. The learned Special Government Pleader points out that the 2017 application was once allowed, and later, the said order was cancelled/set aside by the superior authority, and therefore, the 2017 application is pending as on date. In this connection, it is to be noticed that the Amnesty Scheme, 2020, is introduced by the provisions of the Kerala Finance Act, 2020. Section 10 of the Finance Act provides for the amnesty benefits. Sub-Section (12) to Section 10 reads as under; “(12) Assessees who have opted to settle their arrears under section 31A or section 31B of the former Act during previous years, but had failed to make payments may also opt to settle their cases under this section, and the amounts, if any, paid earlier shall be given credit as tax before reckoning the arrears to be settled under sub-section (6) and the assessee shall furnish the proof of payments made in this regard, however that no refunds shall be allowed.” A reading of the afore provision makes it clear that, even if an assessee had opted for settling the liability under the previous schemes, he is entitled to file an application under the 2020 Scheme if payments pursuant to the application/order passed thereunder were not satisfied. In the case at hand also, it is true that the petitioner had made an application under the 2017 Scheme and originally, the same was granted pursuant to Ext.P7 order dated 21.07.2017 produced in W.P.(C) No.22262 of 2020. It is further true that the afore order is set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam, as per Ext.P8 order dated 16.11.2017, by restoring the application for amnesty to the assessing authority for fresh disposal. The assessing authority has thereafter not issued any further orders. However, even on the face of the afore situation, I am of the opinion that, insofar as the petitioner has not settled the liability under the 2017 Scheme, it is entitled to apply under the 2020 Scheme with reference to the provisions of Section 10(12) of the Finance Act, 2020. 15. In the light of the afore, the larger issue arising for consideration – the 2nd question framed as above – is as to the manner of appropriation of the various amounts remitted by the petitioner, as noticed in paragraph 5 above. The petitioner has remitted the afore amounts pursuant to various orders as noticed already. The State has taken up the stand that the afore amounts are to be appropriated with reference to the provisions of Section 91 of the KVAT Act, which reads as under; “91. Appropriation of payment. – Where any tax or any other amount due or demanded under the Act is paid by any dealer or other person, the payments so made shall be appropriated first towards interest accrued on such tax or other amount under sub-section (5) of section 31 on such date of payment and the balance available shall be appropriated towards principal outstanding.” At the first blush, it may appear that whenever payments are effected by an assessee/dealer, such payments are to be dealt, with reference to the provisions framed as above. 16. However, in the case at hand, two aspects have to be noticed. Firstly, as already noticed, the petitioner had claimed the benefits of amnesty with reference to the Amnesty Scheme, 2020. 16. However, in the case at hand, two aspects have to be noticed. Firstly, as already noticed, the petitioner had claimed the benefits of amnesty with reference to the Amnesty Scheme, 2020. Section 10(8) of the Scheme reads as under; “(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 91 of the former Act, if an assessee who opts to settle his arrears under sub-section (1) has remitted or deposited any amount relating to the arrears after the service of demand notice, including the tax paid under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 74, of the former Act such amount shall be given credit as tax before reckoning the arrears to be settled under sub-section (6) and the assessee shall furnish the proof of payments made in this regard:” (Underlining supplied) A reading of the afore provision would show that the provisions of Section 91 of the KVAT referred to above have been made inapplicable by virtue of the non-obstante clause. Therefore, the apportionment of various payments is to be made without reference to the provisions of Section 91. The position is made clear by providing that any payment made “after the service of the demand notice” has to be given credit as “tax”, before reckoning the arrears to be settled under sub-section (6). It is also made clear through the proviso thereunder that if any payment is made towards penalty or its interest, such payments are not to be given credit as tax under sub-section (8) to Section 10. 17. At this juncture, the contention of Sri. Rafiq with respect to the prospective operation of Section 10(8) of the Scheme, is to be considered. However, the provisions of Section 10(8) have covered any payment made by an assessee “after the service of demand notice”. Therefore, the statute has visualized the payments effected “after the service of demand notice” as coming under the afore sub-section. The provision does not say that payments made earlier and adjusted under Section 91 are not covered. On the other hand, as regards payments made after the service of demand notice, the provisions of Section 91 are made inapplicable with reference to the quantification under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020. 18. The provision does not say that payments made earlier and adjusted under Section 91 are not covered. On the other hand, as regards payments made after the service of demand notice, the provisions of Section 91 are made inapplicable with reference to the quantification under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020. 18. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the respondents may not be justified in contending that the payments effected, as noticed in paragraph No.5 above, are to be appropriated with reference to Section 91 of the KVAT Act. 19. In this connection, I also take notice of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Polsons Distillery v. State of Kerala and Others [MANU/KE/1059/2024], wherein an identical situation came up for consideration before this Court. There, certain payments were made by the assessee towards the tax due, and the department took up the contention that such payments have to be adjusted with reference to Section 55C of the KGST Act, which was corresponding to Section 91 of the KVAT Act. Considering the afore situation, this Court has found as under; “15. When we consider W P.(C). No. 12901 of 2009, which deals with the claim for settlement of the tax demands for 1998-99 to 2004-05 under the Amnesty Scheme, 2009 and the claim of the appellant for settlement of the same dues along with the dues for assessment year 2015-16 under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 in W.A. No. 204 of 2024, we are of the view that inasmuch as the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 envisages a settlement of even those dues that are pending for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2004-05, the appellant must get the benefit of the method of computation of Amnesty amount for the purposes of settlement as envisaged under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020. As the Scheme contains provisions which are beneficial to an assessee, the pendency of the Review Petition, together with the fact that interim orders were passed by this Court and the Supreme Court staying recovery proceedings against the appellant, should be seen as the backdrop against which the payments of various amounts were effected by the appellant during the pendency of the litigation referred above. Accordingly, the said payments have necessarily to be seen as provisional and subject to the final outcome of the litigation. Accordingly, the said payments have necessarily to be seen as provisional and subject to the final outcome of the litigation. When we reckon the payments already made by the appellant and compare it with the settlement amount arrived at through a computation as envisaged under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020, we find that as against a liability of Rs. 2,45,43,736/-, the appellant has paid an amount of Rs. 3,19,32,523/-. We are of the view that the said amount paid by the appellant can be treated as in full and final settlement of the dues for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2004-05 and 2015-16 so as to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties. We are conscious of the fact that in this process, the appellant would have effectively paid an amount of Rs. 73,88,787/- in excess to the Department. However, the learned senior counsel for the appellant graciously submits that he waives the claim for a refund of the said amount in the spirit of settlement.” The afore principles would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand also. It is noticed that an amount of Rs.20 Crores was paid by the petitioner pursuant to the directions issued by the Apex Court. The further amount of Rs.1,48,15,905/- was also paid, representing 30% of the arrears upon filing the statutory appeal. The amount of Rs.7.5 Crores is paid pursuant to the interim order issued in W.P.(C) No.17130 of 2017 on 24.05.2017. In the order dated 24.05.2017, this Court has specifically noticed that the payment as above is only to be treated as a “deposit”, and the appropriation of the said amount to any account is not to be made without obtaining further orders in that regard. It is also noticed that the payment as above is ordered, taking into account the Amnesty Scheme benefits pointed out by the petitioner. The afore payments can only be treated as “provisional” as found by a Division Bench of this Court in the afore judgment. 20. A reference to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in WS Retail Services (P.) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(2018) 48 GSTR 51] would also be apposite. In the afore judgment, with reference to the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and the provisions of the Settlement Scheme, 2017, the Court held as under; “27. 20. A reference to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in WS Retail Services (P.) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(2018) 48 GSTR 51] would also be apposite. In the afore judgment, with reference to the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and the provisions of the Settlement Scheme, 2017, the Court held as under; “27. The question which therefore arises is that whatever the amount is paid in pursuance of the assessment order or after the assessment order is passed by the Assessing Authority, whether it is described as a ‘deposit’ or ‘payment’ of tax or other amounts, such payments remains subject to the adjudication by the Appellate Authority or by the Courts, where the uncertainty of the entire demand raised by the Assessing Authority being deleted, reduced or upheld by the appellate authority exists. Therefore, that deposit or that payment cannot be allowed to be ‘adjusted’ or considered as a general revenue of the State itself, unless and until the Appellate Authorities or the Courts determines the issues finally and subject to such decisions only, the ‘adjustment’ of the ‘payment' or 'deposits’ can be made by the Revenue Department. Until that is done, it remains the colourless deposit.” In the light of the afore judgment also, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to contend that the payments made as noticed in paragraph No.5 above are not to be appropriated with reference to the provisions of Section 91 of the KVAT Act and are to be dealt with under the provisions of the Amnesty Scheme, 2020. 21. In this connection, the submission made by Sri.Muhammed Rafiq, the learned Special Government Pleader, with reference to the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Scheme is also to be taken into account. The provisions of section 10(1) of the Scheme, reads as under; “10. Special provision for Reduction of arrears in certain cases. 21. In this connection, the submission made by Sri.Muhammed Rafiq, the learned Special Government Pleader, with reference to the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Scheme is also to be taken into account. The provisions of section 10(1) of the Scheme, reads as under; “10. Special provision for Reduction of arrears in certain cases. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (20 of 2017) and in the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the former Act) or rules made thereunder or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or appellate authority, any assessee who is in arrears of tax or any other amount due under the former Act or under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956) relating to the period up to and including 30th June, 2017, may opt for settling the arrears on payment of,- (i) fifty per cent of the principal amount of the tax in arrears; or (ii) forty per cent of the principal amount of the tax in arrears, if the amount is paid in lump sum within 30 days of receipt of intimation of the assessing authority referred to in sub-section (7):” According to Sri.Muhammed Rafiq, by virtue of the non-obstante clause, no reference can be made to any judgment/decree/order of any Court/Tribunal or Appellate Authority. Therefore, he contends that the entitlement to the benefits of the Scheme has to be considered de hors the various orders leading to the payments as noticed in paragraph 5 above. 22. But, in my opinion, the afore contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader cannot be accepted for more than one reason. The provisions of sub-section (1) to Section 10 are to be read along with the other provisions of the Scheme. The non-obstante clause has been provided for, only to get over to the binding nature of the various judgments/orders issued with respect to the liability under the statute. Here, the liability under the statute has already been crystallised pursuant to the orders of the Apex Court, rejecting the Civil Appeal filed against the judgment of this Court, settling the rate of tax as against the commodity in question. It is the afore judgment that gets covered by virtue of the non-obstante clause under sub-section (1) to Section 10. Here, the liability under the statute has already been crystallised pursuant to the orders of the Apex Court, rejecting the Civil Appeal filed against the judgment of this Court, settling the rate of tax as against the commodity in question. It is the afore judgment that gets covered by virtue of the non-obstante clause under sub-section (1) to Section 10. Any other interpretation would render the provisions of Section 10 unenforceable. It is also to be seen that this Court while ordering payment of Rs.7.50 Crores on 24.05.2017, has specifically directed the afore payment to be treated as a deposit and further ordered the said amount not to be appropriated under any head. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader with reference to the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Scheme and the non-obstante clause provided thereunder cannot be accepted. 23. The learned Special Government Pleader had also contended that there cannot be an equitable consideration with reference to Amnesty provisions and hence, the designated authority cannot be called upon to act beyond the Scheme. However, as noticed earlier, this Court has only considered the provisions of the Scheme. The court is not directing the authority to act beyond the Scheme but is only expecting the authority to act in tune with the provisions of the Scheme. Similarly, though the learned Special Government Pleader may be right in contending that the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 has expired, the petitioner had been claiming the benefits under the Scheme by presenting Ext.P10 application, which was sought to be disposed of in a particular manner by Ext.P11, which is challenged in these proceedings. Therefore, the contention raised that on account of the expiry of the Scheme, no direction can be issued, is only to be rejected. 24. In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is justified in contending that the deposits made as noticed in paragraph No.5 above, are to be treated with reference to the provisions of the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 alone and not with reference to the provisions of Section 91 of the KVAT Act. 25. The last question arising for consideration is as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to any refund. 25. The last question arising for consideration is as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to any refund. In this connection, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the provisions of the Amnesty Scheme are self-contained one and there is a bar on refund provided with respect to the said Scheme. He relies on the provisions of Section 10(9) in that regard, which reads as under; “9) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or appellate authority, there shall not be any refund or any adjustment subsequently for the amount settled under this scheme, under any circumstances.” A reading of the afore provision would show that the refund that is denied is the “amount settled under the Scheme”. Here, the petitioner is not seeking any refund of the amount that is being settled under the 2020 Amnesty Scheme. All that is stated by the afore provision is that, after the settlement under the Scheme, amounts settled are not eligible to be refunded on account of the subsequent findings in any judgment/order issued by any Court/Tribunal/Appellate Authority. The afore provision can only apply in the following situation; an assessee has a liability to tax of Rs.100/- with interest due thereunder. The assessee opts to settle the said liability under the Scheme and remits the amount payable under Section 10(1). Later, by virtue of the orders issued by an Appellate Authority, in an appeal filed by another dealer, the issue is settled in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In such circumstances, by virtue of the provisions of Section 10(9), the assessee is not entitled to a refund of the amount paid under Section 10(1). This is the purport of the provisions of Section 10(9) relied on by the learned Special Government Pleader. Any other interpretation of the afore provision would defeat the very purpose of the Amnesty Scheme. 26. At this juncture, the various judgments relied on by the learned Special Government Pleader have to be referred to. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Hemalatha Gargya v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AP and another [ (2003) 9 SCC 510 ], Empee Distilleries Limited v. State of Kerala [2017 (3) KLT SN 52 (C.N.69)] and Union of India and Others v. NITDIP Textiles Processors Private Limited and Another [ (2012) 1 SCC 226 ]. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Hemalatha Gargya v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AP and another [ (2003) 9 SCC 510 ], Empee Distilleries Limited v. State of Kerala [2017 (3) KLT SN 52 (C.N.69)] and Union of India and Others v. NITDIP Textiles Processors Private Limited and Another [ (2012) 1 SCC 226 ]. The afore judgments were with reference to a relief claimed on the basis of equitable considerations against mandatory provisions. But, as already found, this Court has only interpreted the provisions of the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 and no equitable directions are being issued. The learned Special Government Pleader also relied on Modern Hotel v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Another [ (2016) 15 SCC 620 ]. However, that was a case where the Apex Court found that refund of a particular amount cannot be claimed since that amount was already appropriated towards interest on the principal dues. But in the case at hand, as already noticed, the application of the provisions of Section 91 is excluded in cases where applications for amnesty are being preferred and the question of refund eligibility is being considered with reference to specific provisions of Section 10(9). The learned Special Government Pleader further referred to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.914 of 2013 dated 01.11.2013. That was a case where this Court found with reference to the provisions of Section 55C of the KGST Act, 1963, that whenever payments are made to the Revenue Department, which is being passed on to the sales tax department, the same gets adjusted with reference to the provisions of Section 55C. But as already noticed, there are differentiating factors in the case at hand since, by virtue of the non-obstante clause, Section 91 is made inapplicable and on account of the operation of orders pursuant to which payments are effected. 27. In this connection, I also notice that in the judgment of this Court in Polsons Distillery (supra), the Division Bench of this Court noticed that the assessee made excess payments. However, in view of the assessee's concession that it is not pressing the refund claim, the excess payments are not being ordered to be refunded. 28. 27. In this connection, I also notice that in the judgment of this Court in Polsons Distillery (supra), the Division Bench of this Court noticed that the assessee made excess payments. However, in view of the assessee's concession that it is not pressing the refund claim, the excess payments are not being ordered to be refunded. 28. In view of the afore, I hold that if, after settlement of the liability of the petitioner under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 as above, any amounts are remaining excess, the petitioner would be entitled for refund of such amounts. Resultantly, I allow these writ petitions as under; i. The petitioner’s application for amnesty under the 2020 Scheme is to be processed and disposed of by the 1st respondent in tune with the principles laid down in this judgment. ii. The excess payments effected by the petitioner if any, after settlement under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 as above, to be refunded to the petitioner, within a period of three months from today, however limited to the sum of Rs.7.5 Crores and Rs.3,75,96,181/- as prayed for in W.P(C) No.17130 of 2017.