The petitioner cannot be denied Amnesty Scheme benefits due to government inaction on withdrawal applications.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a Public Limited Company and was an assessee under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act , 1963. The petitioner had certain sales tax arrears pertaining to the assessment years from 1998-99 to 2004-2005. Exts.P1 to P7 are the relevant assessment orders. The petitioner challenged the said assessment orders by filing statutory appeals. When the Government introduced Amnesty Scheme in the year 2024, the petitioner submitted Exts.P23 to P29 applications for settling the tax arrears in respect of the aforesaid assessment years. One of the conditions for settling the liability was to withdraw the appeals submitted by the petitioner against Exts.P1 to P7 assessment orders. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P22 series of applications for withdrawing the said appeals.

2. However, the respondents could not act upon the said applications, as the relevant files were not traced out. As a consequence of the same, Ext.P32 defect notice was issued initially, and later, Exts.P34 to P40 orders were issued by the 4^th respondent, rejecting the applications submitted by the petitioner under Amnesty Scheme. Two reasons are mentioned in the said orders, which are to the effect that, (1) the petitioner did not upload the order of leave to withdraw the appeals granted from the authority along with applications and (2), the petitioner did not upload sufficient payment proofs along with the applications. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Exts.P34 to P40 orders passed and also seeking consequential direction to permit the petitioner to avail the benefits of Amnesty Scheme.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The specific case of the petitioner is that, as far as the non-production of the order of leave to withdraw the appeals is concerned, the same was beyond the control of the petitioner, as the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P22 series applications for withdrawing the said appeals, but, the same was not acted upon by the 2^nd respondent, since the relevant files could not be traced out by the authorities. With regard to the non payment of the amount, it is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is in possession of all the proof to substantiate the said payments and they are prepared to produce the same, if an opportunity is granted. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also brought to the attention of this Court to Ext.P31 information obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, wherein, it is mentioned that, the appeal files could not be traced out by the 2nd respondent.

5. Earlier, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions as to the status of the appeals. It is reported that, despite all earnest efforts the said files of the appeals could not be traced out so far.

6. As the failure to withdraw the appeals was not due to any reasons attributable to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefits of Amnesty Scheme on account of the same. As mentioned above, Ext.P31 would indicate that, the files could not be traced out by the 2^nd respondent. It is also evident from Ext.P22 series that, applications were already submitted by the petitioner seeking withdrawal of the appeals. Therefore, the obligations of the petitioner to withdraw the appeals have been fulfilled, and it was the duty of the 2nd respondent to act upon Ext.P22 series applications and grant leave to withdraw the said appeals. Now it is evident that, it has become impossible, as the files could not be traced out. Therefore, some alternate arrangements will have to be made. As far as the other obj