IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 23071 of 2007(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MARICO LIMITED, NIDA, MENONPARA ROAD, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD. REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, PRADEEP SHETTY. BY ADVS. MR.S.ANIL KUMAR, MR.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (KVAT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 033. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR. MOHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.23071/2007-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING DETAILS OF ENTRY TAX PAID. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 20/02/2007 ADDRESSED TO THE R.1. WITHOUT ENCLOSURE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12/04/2007 OF THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 23071 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking for a declaration that the collection of entry tax under the provisions of Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is violative of the provisions of Article 301 of the Constitution of India, and for consequential direction to refund the amount of entry tax already realised. The issue involved now stands covered by the decision of this court in Thressiamma vs. State of Kerala (2000 ILR (1) Ker. 70). This court held that the demand and collection of entry tax under the Act is illegal, unauthorised and violative of Article 301 of the Constitution of India. In the light of the above decision the petitioner had approached the authorities for refund of the entry tax already paid. But the first respondent through Ext.P3 had declined refund observing that, the judgment cited supra has got only prospective effect, and there is no finding in the judgment WPC.23071 /2007 2 with respect to the entry tax already collected. Since the validity of the Act itself has been struck down by this court, the view taken by the first respondent in Ext.P3 is apparently illegal and erroneous. Since the Statute is not in force, collection if any made under the Statute can only be treated as an illegal collection, which is liable to be refunded. Hence the entry tax collected from the petitioner is liable to be refunded after adjusting amounts due under the KVAT Act. 2. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the decision of this court cited supra is under challenge before the Honourable Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petitions filed stands already admitted. It is needless to say that refund if any made will be subject to the final outcome of the case pending before the Supreme Court. It goes without saying that the respondents will be entitled to recover the amount from the petitioner if ultimately found liable. 3. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to make refund the balance amount of entry tax collected from the petitioner after adjusting the liability due under the provisions of the KVAT Act. This may be WPC.23071 /2007 3 done as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/