IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33700 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL 683 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE) MR.P.L.JOSE. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT), VAT SPECIAL CIRCLE III, COMMERCIAL TAXES COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM 682 015. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 33700 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is an order of the Assistant Commissioner rejecting a petition claiming refund. In Ext.P3 it is stated as follows: “Since the dealer company failed to submit necessary documents as prescribed under Rule 46 and 47 of the KVAT a notice read above was issued to produce the same and an opportunity of being heard was also granted, which acknowledged on 10.3.2008. But the dealer company failed to submit the required documents fully hence the application for refund for Rs.179671594/- (Rs.Seventeen crore Ninety six lac seventy one thousand five hundred and ninety four only) in form no.21B and for Rs.36018437/- (Three crore sixty lac eighteen thousand four hundred and thirty seven only) in form No.21 stands rejected.” 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P3 is a mechanical order and petitioner has relied on Ext.P2. In short the case of WPC.33700/2008. 2 the petitioner is that documents exist and if an opportunity is given, it can be produced. In such circumstances, I think that the matter has to be re- done. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed. The first respondent will take a decision in the matter in accordance with law with notice to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb