JUDGMENT : ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J. The petitioner was a registered dealer under the provisions of Kerala Value Added Tax Act, with PIN 3249040067 before the erstwhile State Tax Officer, Peerumedu. The petitioner was engaged in the business of manufactured ice cream under the brand name 'Uncle John'. The petitioner was paying presumptive tax as contemplated under Sec.6(5) of the KVAT Act. 2. In the year 2010-11, the registration of the petitioner was cancelled, on account of the failure on the part of the petitioner in submitting the returns. Subsequently, Ext.P1 series orders of penalty were issued in respect of the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, alleging that the petitioner had carried out transactions even after the cancellation of the registration. Thus, in the penalty orders, while imposing the liability on the petitioner, the tax was reckoned at the rate of 12.5% for 2011- 12 and 13.5% for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and for the remaining years 14.5%, whereas, according to the petitioner, the actual liability of the petitioner, being a dealer paying tax as presumptive, was only 0.5%. Thereafter, Ext.P2 orders of assessment were passed based on the findings in Ext.P1 series orders of penalty. 3. Based on the same, Ext.P3 recovery notices were issued and in execution of the same, the petitioner was detained in civil prison. Ext.P4 is the order of detention passed by the 4th respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner was released from prison on 28.03.2023, after the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the arrears payable. 4. Later, the petitioner challenged Ext.P1 series penalty orders and Ext.2 series assessment orders, by submitting statutory appeals before the 1st Appellate Authority. However, those appeals were rejected by the Ist Appellate Authority; Ext.P6 common order was passed, in respect of the appeals submitted against the assessment orders and Ext.P8 common order was passed in respect of the appeals filed against the orders of penalty. As against the Ext.P6 order passed in respect of the assessment for 2011-2012, Ext.P7 is the 2 nd appeal and according to the petitioner, he had submitted similar appeals in respect of the other 1 st appellate orders in respect of the assessment orders. 5. As against the Ext.P6 order passed in respect of the assessment for 2011-2012, Ext.P7 is the 2 nd appeal and according to the petitioner, he had submitted similar appeals in respect of the other 1 st appellate orders in respect of the assessment orders. 5. During the pendency of the same, the Government introduced Amnesty Scheme, 2024 and in order to avail the benefits of the same and settle the liability once and for all, the petitioner had withdrawn Ext.P7 appeal and other similar appeals. Accordingly the appeals were permitted to be withdrawn, as evidenced by Ext.P10 order dated 27.09.2024. As part of availing Amnesty Scheme 2024, the petitioner submitted Ext.P13 communication along with Ext.P13(a). 6. According to the petitioner, as per clause (18) of Ext.P9 scheme of settlement, no separate application for settlement is necessary in cases where, the liability payable by the assessee, is already recovered from the assessee by invoking the revenue recovery proceedings. According to the petitioner, in this case, since Rs 4,00,000/- is recovered from the petitioner, that is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the amount payable under the Amnesty Scheme and therefore no separate application was necessary. According to the petitioner, the Ext P13 application submitted by the petitioner for issuance of settlement certificate under the Amnesty Scheme, was not considered by the statutory authorities and recovery proceedings were continued. The petitioner also highlighted that the registration of the petitioner was cancelled without intimating the petitioner. It was in these circumstances the petitioner approached this Court and the reliefs sought by the petitioner are as follows:- (i) issue a writ of mandamus or, any other appropriate writ direction or order quashing the Exhibit P1 series of penalty & Exhibit P12 series of modified assessments (ii) direct the 1st & 7th respondents to follow the guidelines in Exhibit P9 Trade Circular scrupulously in its true spirit in fixing the dues and amount to be paid in Amnesty. (iii) direct the 1st respondent to rectify the modified assessments u/s.66 considering the points raised and keep further recovery actions of 1st& 3rd respondents in pursuance to Exhibit P1 series and Exhibit P12 series of demands in abeyance. (iii) direct the 1st respondent to rectify the modified assessments u/s.66 considering the points raised and keep further recovery actions of 1st& 3rd respondents in pursuance to Exhibit P1 series and Exhibit P12 series of demands in abeyance. (iv) issue any other writ, direction or order found fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court on the facts and special circumstances of the case where in the petitioner having the 0.5% liability had already paid a huge amount and was imprisoned. (v) Dispense with translation of documents in vernacular language. 7. A counter affidavit has been submitted on behalf of the 1st respondent, wherein, it is asserted that, even though the State has introduced the Amnesty Scheme, 2024 to settle the pre-GST arrears with full waiver of interest and penalty, and this matter was intimated to the petitioner, the petitioner failed to avail the benefit of the scheme before the cutoff date i.e., 31.12.2024. It was also averred in the said counter affidavit that, the assessee may now avail the benefit of the General Amnesty Scheme 2025, proposed to be effected from 01.04.2025 as per the Kerala Finance Bill 2025. The said counter was filed on 17.03.2025. 8. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner in response to the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. 9. I have heard Sri. V.V.George Kutty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Arun Ajay Shankar, the learned Govt.Pleader appearing for the respondents. 10. One of the main contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, Ext.P13 series applications submitted by the petitioner for availing the Amnesty Scheme, was not considered by the authorities illegally and therefore, it requires an interference. However, the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit is that, the benefit of Amnesty Scheme 2024 was never availed by the petitioner. 11. As mentioned above, according to the petitioner, since an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakh) is already recovered from the petitioner through the revenue recovery measures and that the same amounts to the fulfillment of the obligation as to the amount payable under the scheme, there is no requirement of separate application. Clause 18 of Ext.P9 scheme was relied on to substantiate the said contention. Therefore it is the contention of the petitioner that, no separate application was required for availing the benefit of Amnesty Scheme, 2024. 12. Clause 18 of Ext.P9 scheme was relied on to substantiate the said contention. Therefore it is the contention of the petitioner that, no separate application was required for availing the benefit of Amnesty Scheme, 2024. 12. However, on going through the settlement scheme as envisaged in Ext.P9 as a whole, I am not inclined to accept the said contention. This is because, clause 13 of Ext.P9, specifically contemplates for an online application along with the documents specified therein. A careful reading of the clauses 14 and 15 of Ext.P9 also clearly convey the necessity of an application for availing the same. Admittedly in this case, no application as envisaged in the aforesaid clause, has been submitted by the petitioner and instead, he places reliance upon clause 18, to contend that, no such application is necessary. 13. Of course, it is true that the petitioner had remitted an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- during the recovery proceedings initiated against him and while he was undergoing detention, in execution of the orders passed. However, that by itself cannot be a ground to hold that, no application is necessary to avail that benefit of the scheme. This is because, clause (13) contemplates the production of certain documents, for the purpose of claiming the benefit of Amnesty Scheme, 2024 and it clearly indicates that a process of verification is absolutely necessary to determine the actual amount payable by the person who seeks for settlement. As far as clause (18) referred to by the petitioner is concerned, that is applicable only in cases where, the entire liability covered by the assessment orders are already recovered by way of revenue recovery proceedings and it is specifically provided that, in such cases, a certificate of settlement can be applied and obtained from the authorities concerned. Thus, that would not exempt the petitioner from submitting an application to avail the Amnesty Scheme 2024. 14. It is evident from the counter affidavit submitted by the 1st respondent that, within the period contemplated for Amnesty Scheme 2024, no application was submitted by the petitioner and thus, the scheme was never attempted to be availed by the petitioner in a proper manner, by fulfilling the requirements of Ext P9. 14. It is evident from the counter affidavit submitted by the 1st respondent that, within the period contemplated for Amnesty Scheme 2024, no application was submitted by the petitioner and thus, the scheme was never attempted to be availed by the petitioner in a proper manner, by fulfilling the requirements of Ext P9. This contention of the respondents cannot be ignored, in view of the fact that, an application, as prescribed in the scheme, was never submitted by the petitioner and the only communication submitted by the petitioner is Ext.P13, which is not an application, envisaged in the scheme. Therefore, it has to be held that no proper application was submitted for availing the benefit of Amnesty Scheme, 2024 and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the respondents denied the benefit of Amnesty Scheme 2024 to the petitioner, cannot be accepted. 15. However, even while holding that the petitioner did not take proper steps to avail any Amnesty Scheme, the fact that the petitioner had withdrawn the 2nd appeals submitted against Ext.P2 assessment orders for the purpose of availing the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme 2024 cannot be ignored. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, sought permission to pursue the appeal, despite Ext.P9 order, by which the appeals were permitted to be withdrawn. The learned Government Pleader opposed the aforesaid prayer, on the reason that, the petitioner had voluntarily got the appeals withdrawn, and since no application had been submitted for Amnesty Scheme, he cannot now seek for restoration of the appeal. The learned Government Pleader also pointed out that, Ext.P10 order permitting the petitioner to withdraw the appeal was passed as early as on 27.09.2024 and at this belated stage the same cannot be permitted to be restored. 16. However, after carefully going through the records, I am of the view that, the petitioner can be granted an opportunity to contest the appeal. This is because, evidently the petitioner had withdrawn the second appeals filed before the Tribunal as against Ext.P6 series orders, for the purpose of availing the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme. Ext.P13 communications along with Ext.P13(a) affidavit submitted would clearly indicate the said intention of the petitioner. This is because, evidently the petitioner had withdrawn the second appeals filed before the Tribunal as against Ext.P6 series orders, for the purpose of availing the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme. Ext.P13 communications along with Ext.P13(a) affidavit submitted would clearly indicate the said intention of the petitioner. Moreover, in the Ext.P10 order of the Appellate Tribunal, which was passed on the memo submitted by the petitioner to avail the Amnesty Scheme, it is clearly mentioned that the appeals are withdrawn to avail the amnesty scheme. Thus the said order along with Ext.P13 application would clearly convey that, the petitioner genuinely wanted to avail the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme 2024. 17. However, evidently, while taking necessary steps in the said process, by way of a misconception or based on wrong advice, as to the procedure to be adopted, instead of submitting a separate application seeking the benefits of an Amnesty Schme, the petitioner sought a settlement certificate, as contemplated under Section Clause 18 of Ext.P9 Scheme. Apparently, the petitioner was under the impression that since the petitioner had already paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- during the course of revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the same is sufficient to cover the entire liability towards the settlement of the orders passed. Thus, merely because of the reason that the petitioner committed a mistake under a misconception, while availing the remedies, he need not be prevented from pursuing the statutory remedies available. This is particularity because, going by the contentions of the petitioner, huge liability was imposed by the petitioner i.e instead of paying the tax at the rate of 0.5% being an assessee under the provision of Section 6(5) of the KVAT Act, the petitioner is mulcted with the liability to pay the tax at the rate ranging from 12.5% to 14.5%. Therefore, it is only proper that the petitioner be permitted to pursue the remedy of second appeal, as against Ext.P2 series orders and the fact that he had opted for withdrawing the appeals for availing the Amnesty Scheme, should not stand in the way of the petitioner, in invoking such remedy. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, as against Ext.P8 common order passed against the orders of penalty also, the petitioner was intending to file appeals but those were not filed because of his intention to avail the Amnesty Scheme. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, as against Ext.P8 common order passed against the orders of penalty also, the petitioner was intending to file appeals but those were not filed because of his intention to avail the Amnesty Scheme. Thus, after considering all the relevant aspects, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P10, enabling the petitioner to pursue the second appeals submitted by the petitioner as against Ext.P6 order and other appellate orders of the first appellate authority in respect of the assessment orders. This would mean that, consequent to the quashing of Ext.P10 order, all the appeals filed by the petitioner against Ext.P6 order would stand restored, and the said appeals shall be considered by the appellate Tribunal. Thereafter, appropriate orders thereon shall be passed in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard. It shall also be open to the petitioner to submit appeals against Ext.P8 order of penalty before the appropriate authorities.