JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J.

The short question to be considered in the appeals is as to whether the application filed under the Amnesty Scheme introduced by Section 31A of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ['KVAT Act' for brevity] can be rejected on the ground that there is an appeal intended by the State from the order of the first appellate authority.

2. The learned Single Judge found that the intention in introducing an Amnesty Scheme was to bring an expeditious end to the pending litigation while the State is also assured of recovery of tax dues. Reading the scheme as such it was found that there is no provision by which the application can be rejected on the mere contemplation of an appeal before the statutory authorities. The rejection was based on a Circular of the Tax Department, which was held to travel beyond the statutory provisions under the guise of a clarification.

3. We have heard Sri.C.E.Unnikrishnan, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for the State and Sri.Harisankar V. Menon, Sri.Tomson T.Emmanuel and Sri.Santhosh P.Abraham for the respondents.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader argues that there is no anomaly in the provision and that the Circular