The petitioner is aggrieved of the coercive proceedings taken by the respondents, invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the tax amount due. It is conceded from the part of the petitioner that, the proceedings came to be finalised as per Exts.P1 to P3 orders passed by the concerned authorities on different dates in 2012.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, no challenge is raised by the petitioner in this writ petition against the orders, which according to the petitioner, are not correct or proper, having deviated far from the actual facts and figures. It was only by virtue of some unforeseen circumstances that, the petitioner came to be a defaulter and despite the earnest efforts taken to have the same challenged, it did not turn to be fruitful. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner wants to purchase peace and the prayer is only to permit the petitioner to liquidate the liability in a phased manner.
The prayers are in the following terms:
“i. To call for the records connected with the case leading to Exts.P7 and P7(a) and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.
ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 5th respondent to recalculate the arrears by giving set off the amount remitted by the petitioner for the assessment year 2002-2003 under Amnesty Scheme.
iii. Alternatively direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court and till a decision is taken on Ext.P8 all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P7 and P7(a) may be kept in abeyance.
iv. To award cost of these proceedings.
v. To grant such other reliefs that may be deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court.”
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that, though an 'Amnesty Scheme' was declared by the Government necessary application in this regard had to be submitted before October and the liability under the Scheme ought to have been satisfied before 31.12.2014. It is also stated that, the total outstanding liability as on date is about Rs.12,27,452/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs twenty seven thousand four hundred and fifty only) in respect of th assessment years 2002 and 2003 (where it is in respect of penalty) and 2005 (where it is in respect of assessment).
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, when a scheme was notified in the year 2010, the petitioner sought to avail the benefit of the said scheme and satisfied a substantial portion of the liability. This was brought to the notice of the 5th respondent vide Ext.P6 dated 21.11.2014, requesting that the said amount might be given credit to and that the petitioner was ready to satisfy the balance amount.
5. The learned Government Pleader vehemently opposes the said relief, pointing out that the Scheme of 2010 is already over. Since the petitioner did not avail the benefit discharging the entire liability under the said Scheme, it cannot be sought to be set off against the subsequent Scheme. It is also stated that, the last day for submitting the application is already over and unless the same is extended, the claim of the petitioner, if any, is not liable to be considered by this Court at this distance of time.
After hearing both the sides, the petitioner is directed to liquidate the outstanding liability by way of 'eight' equal monthly instalments, the first of it shall be effected on or before the 15th of December, 2014, followed by similar installments, to be effected on or before the 15th of the succeeding months. It is made clear that, if the Government notifies any subsequent scheme or extends the date for submitting the application for availing the benefit thereunder, the benefit flowing therefrom shall be given to the petitioner as well. It is made clear that, if any single default is committed with regard to the satisfaction of the liability as above, it will be open for the respondents to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in lump, by pursuing such steps from the stage where it stands now.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp