IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 22869 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAJAN CHAKIATH, SHAROS, ADAM SQUARE, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ANGAMALY. 2. SALES TAX OFFICER, (EXPORTS & IMPORTS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -25. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER VINOD CHANDARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 22869 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioner is that huge amounts have been realised from the petitioner towards the 'Entry Tax' under the provisions of Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a Division Bench of this Court, as per the decision reported in Thressiamma L.Chirayil Vs. State of Kerala 2007 (1) KLT 303 has held that the charging provision in ultravires to the Constitution of India and accordingly, it has been set aside. The petitioner also places reliance on Ext.P5 verdict passed by a Division Bench of this Court following the above verdict, whereby refund has been ordered. 2. Learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondents submits that the position as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner stands by virtue of law declared by the Division Bench in Thressiamma L.Chirayil Vs. State of Kerala 2007 (1) KLT 303. However, it is pointed out that the State has already taken up the matter before the Apex Court (as taken note of in Ext.P5), in view of the larger questions involved. It is also pointed out by the Special Government WPC NO.22869/2009 2 Pleader that a Review Petition has also been filed before this Court against a similar verdict as Ext.P5 ordering refund. The learned Counsel further submits that even if the law has been declared as above, the petitioner is not entitled to get back the amount by virtue of law declared by the Apex Court on the point as to the course to be pursued. However, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the above submissions for time being; particularly in view of the alternative prayer at serial No. 3 in the Writ Petition for a direction to be given to the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P4 application for refund. 3. In the above circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P4 application filed by the petitioner claiming refund, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible; at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) dnc