Kerala High Court: Lok Ayukta has no Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Plea Against Rejection of Settling Arrears of Sales Tax under Amnesty Scheme

Kerala High Court: Lok Ayukta has no Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Plea Against Rejection of Settling Arrears of Sales Tax under Amnesty Scheme

The Kerala High Court by its division bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Murali Purushothaman, observed that Lok Ayukta is a creation of the statute and has no inherent jurisdiction. It cannot assume any jurisdiction otherwise confirmed by the Lok Ayukta Act; hence Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to decide the correctness of the order rejecting the option for settling the arrears under the Amnesty Scheme-2020.

In the present case, complaints were filed before the Lok Ayukta, by a husband and wife, 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, 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.

The petitioners, who were 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 was illegal and set aside the same.

Hence, the petitioners assailed the order of the Lok Ayukta on merits and on the ground of jurisdictional infirmity.

The question before the bench of High Court that came for consideration was whether the Lok Ayukta has jurisdiction to entertain complaint and decide the correctness of the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer in rejecting the application of the complainants for option under the Amnesty Scheme-2020.

The Court at the outset highlighted that, the power exercised by the Sales Tax Officer in rejecting the application of the complainants opting for the Amnesty Scheme-2020 is a quasi-judicial function and a hierarchy of remedies is provided against the said order under Chapter-VII of the KGST Act apart from the remedy available before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in appropriate cases.

The bench was of the view that if the complainants were aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Officer rejecting the application opting for the Amnesty Scheme 2020, they ought to have invoked the aforesaid remedies.

The Court referred to the decision passed in the case of Sudha Devi K. vs. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and Others (2017), wherein it was held that Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta are not appellate or supervisory authorities over other competent forums created under different Statutes, because each of those Statutes provides its own remedial steps like appeal, revision or otherwise. Parties have to follow those procedures and their remedies are to be worked out on the basis of those statutory provisions. There is nothing in the Lok Ayukta Act which would override those procedures or forums giving Lok Ayukta the right to override orders passed by the statutory authorities.

While applying the aforesaid principles, the bench found that the complaint before the Lok Ayukta does not reveal any allegation or grievance in consequence of maladministration.

In this regard, the Court observed, “in our view, is not maintainable before the Lok Ayukta and the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to decide the correctness of the order rejecting the option for settling the arrears under the Amnesty Scheme-2020. Accordingly, report of the Lok Ayukta is set aside.”