JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan J. 1. The present writ application has been filed praying therein for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, for quashing/setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 415 dated 24.07.2023 (Annexure-11) passed by Respondent No.2-Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur in Appeal Case No. JR/JKSYA-04/2023- 24 for the period 2004-05, wherein the appeal filed by the Petitioner in terms of ‘Jharkhand Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Act, 2022’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘Settlement Scheme of 2022’ for short), has been dismissed. (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing/setting aside the order of settlement dated 3 rd May, 2023 (Anneuxre-9) passed by Respondent No.3 under Settlement Scheme of 2022 pertaining to the period 2004-05 to the extent the amount of pre-deposit of Rs. 6,00,02,005/-, being the amount of disputed tax paid by Petitioner has not been allowed to be adjusted against the final settlement amount while issuing settlement order, due to which, Petitioner was compelled to deposit excess payment of Rs. 3,60,01,203/-, or alternatively Rs. 3,31,72,992/- as per revised computation filed before the Appellate Authority (Annexure-15) is also neither sustainable in law nor in facts and the same is liable to be quashed/set aside . (iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/ direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 3,60,01,203/- or alternatively, Rs. 3,31,72,992/- as per revised computation filed before the Appellate Authority (Annexure-15) being the excess amount realized by them in terms of Settlement Scheme of 2022 by adopting the mechanism of deducting the amount of pre-deposit made by Petitioner against the disputed tax and, thereafter, conferring the benefit of waiver of tax to the Petitioner in a most illegal and arbitrary manner. (iv) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/ direction directing the Respondents to make payment of interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs.3,60,01,203/- or alternatively, Rs. 3,31,72,992/- as per revised computation filed before the Appellate Authority (Annexure-15) from the date of deposit i.e. 28.04.2023, till the date of refund of the said amount. (v) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s), as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. 3,31,72,992/- as per revised computation filed before the Appellate Authority (Annexure-15) from the date of deposit i.e. 28.04.2023, till the date of refund of the said amount. (v) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s), as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Brief facts of the case as evident from the records is that petitioner is engaged in manufacturing and selling of heavy and medium commercial vehicles and its spare and accessories and is also having its unit at Jamshedpur in the District of East Singhbhum, State of Jharkhand. 3. The present writ petition relates to dispute of financial year 2004-05 under Bihar Finance Act, 1981. For the period in dispute, an assessment order dated 01.07.2008 was passed by assessing officer, wherein as against the admitted tax liability of Rs. 64,29,12,831/- assessment of tax was made for an amount of Rs. 1,41,78,52,927/- an amount of Rs. 4,12,264/- was paid as admitted tax pursuant to assessment and, thus, disputed tax remained as Rs. 77,45,27,832/-. Against the said order, petitioner after exhausting the remedy of appeal and revision filed writ petition before this Hon’ble Court vide W.P.(T) No. 1624 of 2014 and W.P.(T) No. 4154 of 2015. It is an admitted fact that as against the disputed tax liability of Rs. 77,45,27,832/-, petitioner deposited on various dates an amount of Rs. 6,00,02,005/- which was primarily deposited by it either towards pre-deposit and/or amounts towards condition of stay passed by various forms. 4. In the meanwhile, State of Jharkhand formulated an Amnesty Scheme namely, ‘‘Jharkhand Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Act, 2022’ [hereinafter referred to as ‘Amnesty Scheme’] and even Rules for giving effect to the said scheme was also formulated namely, ‘Jharkhand Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Rules, 2023’ [hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of2023’]. 5. Petitioner being desirous of availing benefit under the Scheme filed online application in prescribed format in terms of Rule 3(1) of Rules of 2023 but it is the case of the petitioner that while filing online application formsuo-motu computation of the benefit under Amnesty Scheme was determined, wherein the amount of pre-deposit of Rs. 6,00,02,005/- was first adjusted against the disputed amount and upon remaining balance, waiver of 60% and 50% of tax respectively was extended to petitioner. 6,00,02,005/- was first adjusted against the disputed amount and upon remaining balance, waiver of 60% and 50% of tax respectively was extended to petitioner. The same was illustrated as under:- Amount admitted in Return 64,29,12,831/- Amount of Tax assessed 1,41,78,52,927/- Balance to be paid (after adjustment of Rs. 4,12,264/- paid in respect of assessed tax). 77,45,27,832/- Less amount of pre-deposit 6,00,02,005/- Remaining Balance 71,45,25,827/- Waiver granted [60% of Rs. 76,88,71,410 after first deduction of Rs. 6,00,02,005 & 50% of Rs. 56,56,422/-, i.e. waiver of Rs 42,53,21,643/- + 28,28,211] 42,81,49,854/- Amount directed to be paid 28,63,75,973/- 6. It is the case of petitioner that under the Settlement Scheme, 60% waiver of disputed tax under Section 3 was applicable, where disputed tax related to amount other than certificate/declaration forms and in respect of declaration forms/certificates waiver of tax to the extent of 50% was admissible. According to petitioner, waiver pertaining to disputed tax should have been applied first before adjusting pre-deposit/deposit amounts and had the said methodology been adopted by respondents, total settlement amount would have been Rs. 31,03,76,775/- against which petitioner had already made a deposit of Rs. 6,00,02,005/- and, hence, balance to be paid by petitioner would have been ‘25,03,74,770’/-. 7. However, since respondents first adjusted the amount of pre- deposit from the amount of disputed tax and, thereafter, applied waiver under the scheme, an amount of Rs. 28,63,75,973/- was determined to be paid by petitioner while computing settlement amount on 18.04.2023 which the petitioner was compelled to pay under protest on 29.04.2023. As per petitioner due to aforesaid incorrect application of scheme, petitioner was compelled to pay an extra amount of Rs.3,60,01,023/-. 8. Thereafter, settlement order for Rs. 28,63,75,973/- was passed on 03.05.2023 against which in terms of Amnesty Scheme, vide Section 8 thereof, petitioner preferred an appeal before Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur. However, appellate authority vide its order contained in Memo No. 415 dated 24.07.2023, confirmed the order of settlement andheld that amount of pre-deposit made by petitioner was to be first deducted from disputed amount and only thereafter, benefit under the Scheme was to be extended to petitioner. 9. However, appellate authority vide its order contained in Memo No. 415 dated 24.07.2023, confirmed the order of settlement andheld that amount of pre-deposit made by petitioner was to be first deducted from disputed amount and only thereafter, benefit under the Scheme was to be extended to petitioner. 9. However, from the records and statements made in the writ petition and revised computation given vide Annexure-15, it would transpire that petitioner during the appellate proceedings had given a revised computation taking into consideration the amount of tax pertaining to declaration forms and, as per the said revised computation as against an original refund of Rs. 3,60,01,203/- claimed by petitioner refund of Rs. 3,31,72,992/- was only claimed. In fact, from Annexure- 15, it would be evident that petitioner before appellate authority had made prayer for refund as per alternative computation. 10. Mr. Sumeet Kumar Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that under Amnesty Scheme, provisions were incorporated for giving waiver of disputed tax to the extent of 60% and 50% of the disputed amount and the term ‘admitted tax’ and ‘disputed amount’ is defined under Amnesty Scheme itself vide Section 2(i) and2(viii). 11. It was further submitted that Section 3 of Amnesty Scheme clearly provided, inter alia, that amount of waiver was to be calculated being the difference between the tax component of assessed tax and the amount of tax already paid. It was submitted that the term amount of tax already paid is the amount of admitted tax paid by an assessee and would not include any amount pertaining to disputed tax which has been paid either as pre-deposit or as condition of stay, etc. 12. It has been submitted that almost identical provisions of Central Amnesty Scheme i.e. Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 came up for interpretation by this Hon’ble Court, wherein exactly similar dispute was adjudicated by this Hon’ble Court and it was held that intent of the Scheme was to give waiver of disputed tax amount and, merely, because some amount towards pre- deposit/deposit is made by an assessee, the same cannot be first deducted from disputed tax amount for determining the measure for extending benefit of waiver. 13. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Yadav counsel for Respondent-State while referring to the paragraphs of the Counter Affidavit submitted that it is an admitted fact that petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 13. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Yadav counsel for Respondent-State while referring to the paragraphs of the Counter Affidavit submitted that it is an admitted fact that petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 6,00,02,005/- pursuant to demand notice under protest, but, the moot question for adjudication would be as to whether the amount deposited by petitioner under protest would remain a disputed amount of tax or a tax realized against the demand raised by revised orders passed pursuant to remand order passed by appellate authority. 14. It has been submitted that although amounts were deposited under protest but once remand assessment orders were passed and the amounts paid under protest were adjusted against disputed demand, then the said amounts paid under protest would stand appropriated against the disputed amount and disputed amount to that extent would stand reduced. 15. It was further submitted that under the Scheme, definition of “disputed amount” would mean the amount disputed by an assessee minus the amount already paid by it at any interim stage of the proceedings, may be either as pre-deposit/deposit/suo-motu deposit etc. and, thus, while passing the settlement order, rightly the settlement officer issued certificate after first adjusting the amount of pre-deposit from disputed amount and, thereafter, extending the benefit of waiver under the Scheme. 16. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties at bar and perused the provisions of ‘Jharkhand Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Act, 2022’ and the corresponding Rules. 16. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties at bar and perused the provisions of ‘Jharkhand Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Act, 2022’ and the corresponding Rules. For the sake of ready reference, certain relevant provisions of the aforesaid Amnesty Scheme is quoted herein under:- 2 DEFINITIONS- (i) "Admitted tax"- means the amount of tax admitted as being payable as per the returns filed by the person under the relevant Act; (ii) "Assessed tax"- means tax, interest and penalty determined as being payable under an order of assessment or reassessment under the relevant Act; (vii) "Dispute" means an Appeal, Revision, Review, Reference, Writ Petition, or Special Leave Petition, arising out of any order passed under the relevant Act and pending before, as the case may be, the following:- (i) The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes/State Tax (Appeal); (ii) The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes/State tax (Administration); (iii) The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes; (iv) The Commercial Taxes Tribunal; (v) The Central Sales Tax Tribunal (vi) The High Court; (vii) The Supreme Court of India; Explanation:- For the purposes of this clause a dispute includes: (i) Any levy of tax, interest and penalty by an authority prescribed and/or authorized under the relevant Acts, which has not been paid into Government Treasury, or (ii) A proceeding for recovery of any tax, interest, or penalty pending for recovery under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914; (viii) "Disputed Amount" , in relation to a dispute, means any tax or interest or penalty which has been determined as being payable by the person pursuant to an order of assessment, reassessment, scrutiny or any other order made or passed under the Relevant Acts and which is not admitted and for such demand a litigation has been filed before any Appellate Authority or Forum but shall not include any demand in pursuant to an order of assessment, reassessment, scrutiny or any other order made or passed under the Relevant Acts where the Government has filed any case against such demand before any Appellate Authority or higher Courts. 17. 17. A perusal of Settlement Scheme would reveal that under Settlement Scheme, term ‘admitted tax’ is defined to mean an amount of tax admitted as being payable as per return filed by an assessee, and, the term ‘disputed amount’ means the amount of tax, interest or penalty which is determined as payable by an assessee pursuant to an order of assessment/re-assessment/scrutiny or any other order and which is not admitted, and, for such demand, a litigation has been filed by an assessee. 18. Thus, under the Scheme, amount of ‘admitted tax’ clearly represents an amount which is admitted by assessee, whereas ‘disputed amount’ means amount of tax, interest or penalty which is in dispute pursuant to a litigation filed by an assessee. 19. Under Section 3 of Settlement Scheme, waiver is provided to the extent of 60% disputed being other taxes and waiver of 50% was provided where disputed tax related to declaration forms/certificates in the following manner:- ‘3. Determination of Settlement amount.- Subject to other provisions of this Act, old arrears of tax or tax in a dispute pending under the relevant Act may, on an application made in this behalf by a person, be settled upon payment of the settlement amount as specified in column 3 and 4 of the Table below: No. Type of Cases Settlement amount 1 2 3 (Tax) 4 (Interest) 1 Arrear of admitted tax, interest and penalty 100% amount of admitted tax 10% of unpaid amount of interest and penalty (90% waiver). 2 Arrear amount of assessed tax upto Financial year 2017-18. 40% of the difference between the tax component of assessed tax and the amount of tax already paid (60% waiver) 10% of the unpaid amount of interest and penalty in that statutory order (90% waiver) 3 Arrear amount related to statutory declarations /Forms/certificates upto Financial Year 2017-18 50% of the unpaid amount of tax calculated after the deduction of (50% waiver) (a) The amount of tax involved in the value of acceptable Forms/ Certificates/Declarations submitted by the applicant before the prescribed authority under this Act, and (b) The amount already paid towards the total arrear of tax. 10% of the unpaid amount of interest and penalty as per statutory order (90% waiver) 4 Any arrear in dispute other than mentioned in Sl. 10% of the unpaid amount of interest and penalty as per statutory order (90% waiver) 4 Any arrear in dispute other than mentioned in Sl. No. 1, 2 and 3 40% of tax in dispute provided the same has not been declared/considered in any order/ assessment/reassessment (60% waiver) 10% of the unpaid amount of interest and penalty as per statutory order (90% waiver) Provided that, where the amount of tax involved in the value of acceptable forms/ certificates/ declarations, alongwith the amount already paid, becomes more than the arrear amount, no refund shall be made as a result of the Settlement. Provided further that, no application for settlement shall be entertained by the authority, in which the State Government/Department has moved to higher court. Explanation-I Where settlement application is made only against interest and penalty order, it shall be considered provided the relevant tax component in the statutory order has been paid; Explanation-II For the purpose of settlement of dispute, each statutory order/Demand Note issued by the department/ authority shall be construed as one dispute and person has to apply separately for settlement for each such dispute.’ 20. In the present case, disputed tax of the petitioner also pertained to non-furnishing of declaration forms and, thus, waiver of tax to the extent of 60% and 50% respectively were applicable to petitioner. It is not in dispute that disputed amount was Rs. 28,63,75,973/- /- and amount of Rs. 6,00,02,005/- was deposited as pre-deposit and/or condition of stay. 21. In our considered opinion, this calculation made by the respondent is erroneous for the following reason:- If an assessee is having a liability of Rs.1 crore and he does not pay any amount, he will get benefit of 60% waiver as per the scheme and he will have to pay Rs. 40 lakhs. But if an assessee who is having a tax liability of Rs. 1 Crore, pays as pre-deposit pending appeal Rs. 30 lakhs, his balance tax liability is Rs. 70 lakhs; benefit which is to accrue to him cannot be computed at 60% of Rs. 70 lakhs i.e., Rs.42 lakhs. If this is done, then he would be worse off by paying Rs.30 lakhs ( as he would get a lesser benefit of only Rs. 30 lakhs, his balance tax liability is Rs. 70 lakhs; benefit which is to accrue to him cannot be computed at 60% of Rs. 70 lakhs i.e., Rs.42 lakhs. If this is done, then he would be worse off by paying Rs.30 lakhs ( as he would get a lesser benefit of only Rs. 42 lakhs under the scheme) than an assessee who does not pay any amount pursuant to demand and gets waiver of 60% of Rs.1 Crore i.e. Rs. 60 Lakhs. This could never have been the intention of the scheme. Similar view has been taken in Vassu Enterprises & analogous cases v. Union of India &Ors., [(2023) 11 GSTR 21] while interpreting the Central Amnesty Scheme i.e. Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, it was held:- ‘28. Even from a plain reading of Section 124(2), it would be evident that the amount of deposit made during enquiry, investigation or audit is required to be deducted after extending relief under section 124(1) of the Scheme and at the time of issuing statement indicating the amount payable by a declarant. Even otherwise, the intent of legislature cannot be in such a way that an assesse who pays some amount either suo motu prior to demand or after demand put in worse condition than an assesse who does not pay any amount after demand and avail the benefit of the scheme because admittedly; if the contention of the revenue is accepted then if an assesse is having liability of 1 crore rupees and he does not pay any amount then he will get benefit of 40% as per the scheme and he will have to pay 60 lacs. However, if an assesse who is having a demand of 1 crore and during course of investigation or otherwise he pays an amount of 30 lacs then if 40% will be deducted from 70 lacs than he would be in worse position than anassesse who does not pay any amount pursuant to demand. This can never be the intent of the scheme.’ 22. This can never be the intent of the scheme.’ 22. In our opinion, difference between disputed tax and admitted tax was the amount in dispute and under the scheme, petitioner was entitled for waiver of 60% and 50% respectively, but while computing the tax liability, Settlement Officer first deducted the amount of pre- deposit from the amount in dispute and, thereafter, extended the benefit of waiver under the scheme which is clearly travelling beyond the contours of the scheme itself. 23. The methodology adopted by the assessing officer can be summarized in the following chart:- Amount admitted in Return 64,29,12,831/- Amount of Tax assessed 1,41,78,52,927/- Balance to be paid (after adjustment of Rs. 4,12,264/- paid in respect of assessed tax). 77,45,27,832/- Less amount of pre-deposit 6,00,02,005/- Remaining Balance 71,45,25,827/- Waiver granted [60% of Rs. 76,88,71,410 after first deduction of Rs. 6,00,02,005 & 50% of Rs. 56,56,422/-, i.e. waiver of Rs 42,53,21,643/- + 28,28,211] 42,81,49,854/- Amount directed to be paid 28,63,75,973/- 24. So, in our opinion, determination of tax liability under the Scheme was to be undertaken in the following manner and not as done by the assessing officer :- Part-1 Admitted amount as per return of the Petitioner. Rs. 64,29,12,831/- Amount paid as admitted tax Rs. 64,29,12,831/- Balance to be paid as admitted tax 0 Tax assessed by the Assessing Officer (other than rejection of claim arising out of non- submission of declaration Forms) Rs. 141,21,96,505/- Amount paid in respect of assessed tax Rs. 4,12,264/- Remaining Balance to be paid Rs. 76,88,71,410/- Settlement amount to be paid (40% of Remaining Balance) Rs. 30,75,48,564/- Part-2 Arrear amount arising out of the non- submission of the declaration Forms. Rs. 56,56,422/- Tax amount arising out of Value of declaration Forms which are now available but not considered 0 Balance of tax amount arising out of value of forms which are not supported with declaration Forms. Rs. 56,56,422/- Settlement amount to be paid (50%) Rs. 28,28,211/- Total settlement amount Rs. 31,03,76,775/- Amount of Pre-deposit Rs.6,00,02,005/- Balance to be paid Rs. 25,03,74,770/- Settlement Amount determined by Assessing Officer Rs. 28,63,75,973/- Excess amount determined Rs.3,60,01,203/- 25. Thus, we are of the opinion that petitioner is right in contending that due to incorrect application of Settlement Scheme, petitioner is denied its actual benefit which resulted into a loss of Rs. 3,60,01,203/- (Rs.28,63,75973 – Rs. 25,03,74,770). 25,03,74,770/- Settlement Amount determined by Assessing Officer Rs. 28,63,75,973/- Excess amount determined Rs.3,60,01,203/- 25. Thus, we are of the opinion that petitioner is right in contending that due to incorrect application of Settlement Scheme, petitioner is denied its actual benefit which resulted into a loss of Rs. 3,60,01,203/- (Rs.28,63,75973 – Rs. 25,03,74,770). However, before the appellate authority, petitioner had filed its revised computation taking into consideration the component of the declaration form and has claimed only as per revised computation being an amount of Rs. 3,31,72,992/-. Hence, we are of the opinion that petitioner cannot take a different stand than what it has taken in the appellate proceedings and it can only be entitled for refund as per the revised computation submitted before the appellate authority of an amount of Rs. 3,31,72,992/- and not the original refund amount claimed as Rs. 3,60,01,203/-. 26. Admittedly, Settlement Scheme is a beneficial scheme and Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Government of Kerala and Another v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent reported in (2021) 5 SCC 602 , has held that even in tax statutes, exemption provisions should be liberally considered in accordance with the object sought to be achieved. In a beneficial legislation, literal formalistic interpretation should be eschewed to give full effect to the provisions of the beneficial legislation. 27. In view of the facts stated hereinabove, impugned order passed by the appellate authority contained in Memo No. 415 dated 24.07.2023 in Appeal Case No. JR/JKSYA-04/2023-24 for the period 2004-05 is set aside and, further, order of settlement to the extent, amount of pre-deposit of 6,00,02,005/- was directed to be adjusted from the amount in dispute before extending the benefit of settlement is set aside. 28. Consequentially, a writ of mandamus is issued upon respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 3,31,72,992/- to petitioner realized in excess by them under the Scheme of 2022. Petitioner would further be entitled for payment of interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,31,72,992/- from the date of deposit i.e. 28.04.2023 till the date of refund of the said amount @ 6% p.a. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondent-authorities within a period of eight weeks from today. 29. Pending, I.As., if any, stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.