SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ker) 221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S. MANIKUMAR, MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, JJ.
The Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) Government Of Kerala, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001 and 5 Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Kerala Lok Ayukta, Represented By Its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram and 5 Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 8925 Of 2021
Decided On : 24-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri. Mohammed Rafiq, Smt. Resmitha R. Chandran.
For the Respondents: Sri. D. Sajeev, Asp. Kurup, Ligey Antony, Sadchith P. Kurup, C.P. Anil Raj.

Point of Law: Section 7 of Lok Ayukta Act provides for matters which may be investigated by Lok Ayukta.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 - Section 49 - Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 - Section 7(1), 2(k), (b) - Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 - Section 51, 23B, 34, 36, 38 and 39 - Lok Ayukta - Correctness of order passed - Arrears of sales tax - Whether Lok Ayukta can adjudicate correctness of order passed by assessing authority rejecting option for settling arrears of sales tax under Amnesty Scheme, is moot question for consideration in this writ petition – Lok Ayukta is a creation of statute and has no inherent jurisdiction - Para 14.

Finding of the Court: Power exercised by Sales Tax Officer in rejecting application of complainants opting for Amnesty Scheme-2020 is a quasi judicial function and a hierarchy of remedies is provided against said order under Chapter-VII of KGST Act apart from remedy available before this Court under Article 226 of Constitution in appropriate cases - If complainants are aggrieved by order of Sales Tax Officer rejecting application opting for Amnesty Scheme 2020, they ought to have invoked aforesaid remedies - Lok Ayukta is a creation of statute and has no inherent jurisdiction - It cannot assume any jurisdiction otherwise confirmed by Lok Ayukta Act - Ext. P1 complaint before Lok Ayukta does not reveal any allegation or grievance in consequence of maladministration - Therefore, Ext. P1 complaint, in court view, is not maintainable before Lok Ayukta and Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to decide correctness of order rejecting option for settling arrears under Amnesty Scheme-2020 - Accordingly, Ext.P3 report of Lok Ayukta is set aside.

Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

[Murali Purushothaman, J.]

1. Whether the Lok Ayukta can adjudicate the correctness of the order passed by the assessing authority rejecting the option for settling arrears of sales tax under the Amnesty Scheme, is the moot question for consideration in this writ petition.

2. The Revenue and Sales Tax authorities of the State have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 report passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta in Complaint No.117/2020(D), setting aside the order of the assessing authority rejecting the option exercised by the complainants for settling the arrears of sales tax under the Amnesty Scheme-2020 and declaring that the complainants are entitled to opt for the Amnesty Scheme.

3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

The complainants before the Lok Ayukta, who are husband and wife, are the Directors of M/s. Welgate Video Private Limited. The 1st complainant, the Managing Director, submitted an option for payment of arrears of sales tax under the Amnesty Scheme-2020; but the same was rejected by the Sales Tax Officer on the ground that the Tahsildar (RR) has collected and remitted Rs.1,23,71,421/-through auction and that auction of another property was under processing and hence, the complainants are not entitled to opt for settling the arrears of sales tax under the Amnesty Scheme-2020. Challenging the said order, Ext.P1 complaint was filed before the Lok Ayukta wherein the complainants, inter alia, sought for declaration that they are entitled to the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme-2020 and that the amount of Rs.1.33 crores obtained by way of auction sale of their properties is liable to be apportioned according to the Scheme and the balance amount available with the Revenue/Sales Tax authorities is liable to be remitted with the Union Bank of India towards their dues.

4. The petitioners, who are respondents 1 to 6 in the complaint, filed their version and the Lok Ayukta considered the issues as to whether the complainants are entitled to the benefits under the Amnesty Scheme-2020 and whether the Government is liable to apportion the amount of Rs.1.33 crores received by way of auctioning the property, and held that the order of the Sales Tax officer rejecting the application of the complainants for the benefit of Amnesty Scheme is discriminatory violating their fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Lok Ayukta also found that the order rejecting of the option of the complainants for settling the sales tax arrears under the Amnesty Scheme-2020 is illegal and set aside the same and declared that the Sales Tax authorities concerned are bound to consider the option exercised by the complainants in the light of Amnesty Scheme-2020 and recommended to the competent authority to consider the option under the Amnesty Scheme-2020 and to apportion the amount of Rs.1.33 crores within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report of the Lok Ayukta.

5. The petitioners assail the order of the Lok Ayukta on merits and on the ground of jurisdictional infirmity. According to the petitioners, the revenue recovery proceedings are initiated against the complainants to recover the amounts legally due to the Revenue and after having recovered the said amounts through the machinery under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 ('Revenue Recovery Act' for short), the complainants cannot be granted the benefit of Amnesty Scheme-2020 for the same amount, since such payment cannot be considered as payment of outstanding arrears either fully or partially. As regards the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta to entertain Ext. P1 complaint, it is contended that action impugned is not a complaint involving a 'grievance' or an 'allegation' as defined under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Lok Ayukta Act' for short) so as to bring it within the ambit of investigation under Section 7(1) of the Lok Ayukta Act. It is contended that the acti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top