VAT Defaulter Not Liable To Pay Collection Charges If Opts Amnesty Scheme: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that collection charges are not payable if a VAT defaulter opts for the Kerala Amnesty Scheme, 2017.The single bench of Gopinath P. has noted that the petitioner had settled the liabilities in terms of the provisions contained in the Amnesty Scheme of 2017, which was introduced by the provisions contained in the Kerala Finance Act 2017.The court stated that as...
The Kerala High Court has held that collection charges are not payable if a VAT defaulter opts for the Kerala Amnesty Scheme, 2017.
The single bench of Gopinath P. has noted that the petitioner had settled the liabilities in terms of the provisions contained in the Amnesty Scheme of 2017, which was introduced by the provisions contained in the Kerala Finance Act 2017.
The court stated that as per the provisions of Section 31A(2) of the Kerala Finance Act, 2017, the assessee/defaulter will not be liable to pay any collection charges. Section 31A(2) of the Kerala Finance Act of 2017 starts with a non-obstante clause and, therefore, it will have an overriding effect over the contrary provision contained in the Revenue Recovery Act or in the Rules framed thereunder.
The petitioner/assessee faced revenue recovery proceedings for the recovery of amounts due from the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner remitted amounts and the writ petition was disposed of by judgment, directing the government to consider certain claims made by the petitioner/assessee. When the matter was under consideration, as directed in the judgment, the government introduced the 2017-Amnesty Scheme, and the petitioner applied for the settlement of the demands against him under the provisions of the Amnesty scheme. The application was accepted and the petitioner remitted the entire amount due under the Amnesty Scheme.
The petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that though the petitioner remitted the entire amount under the Amnesty Scheme, there was a demand raised on the petitioner for payment of collection charges in terms of the Rules.
The petitioner contended that since the petitioner had settled the demands against him by opting for the Amnesty Scheme of 2017, there could not be any demand for payment of collection charges.
The department contended that the petitioner had earlier approached the Court and had obtained a stay of revenue recovery proceedings on deposit of certain amounts. Even when the liability is cleared in instalments or by paying amounts imposed as a condition for stay by the Court, collection charges in terms of the Revenue Recovery Rules, 1968 will have to be paid by the defaulter.
The court, while allowing the appeal, observed that the petitioner had settled the liabilities in terms of the provisions contained in the Amnesty Scheme of 2017, which was introduced by the provisions contained in the Kerala Finance Act 2017.
Case Title: B. Madhukumar Vs Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: WP(C) No. 14030 Of 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 540
Date: 07.10.2022
Counsel For Petitioner: Advocates Harishankar V. Menon, Meera V. Menon
Counsel For Respondent: Advocates Jasmin M.M.