IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1058 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.22814/2010 Dated 18/08/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------- 1. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCIAL TAX,KANJIRAPPILLY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER(TAXES),SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------- THRESIAMMA GEORGE,KARIMPANAL, CHAITHANYA,KANJIRAPPILLY. BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 1058 of 2010 IN W.P.(C)No. 22814 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010 O R D E R This Review Petition has been filed at the instance of the Revenue stating that there occurred an error apparent on the face of record, when W.P.(C) No.22814 of 2010 was disposed of on 18.08.2010, directing to release the amount covered by Ext.P1 by way of interest as ordered by the concerned respondent. 2. Review Petitioners contend that reference made to Section 68(4) of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act which provides for granting of interest at the rate of 15% per annum is not applicable to the case in hand. The learned Special Government Pleader(Taxes) appearing for the review petitioners submits that there is no provision in the Old Act which governs the field in question and as such, the verdict passed by this Court, directing payment of interest, is liable to be reviewed. 3. On going through the materials on record, it is R.P. No. 1058 of 2010 IN W.P.(C)No. 22814 of 2010 -:2:- seen that, the impugned judgment was passed not placing reliance on Section 68(4) of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act or as to the rate of interest payable accordingly; though a reference was made to the said provision in paragraph 5 of the judgment. 4. The entire sequence of events was taken note of by this Court with regard to the claim for interest. As a matter of fact, the writ petitioner was compelled to effect the deposit as per the interim order passed by the Tribunal, as a condition for availing the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the revision petition. Ultimately, the merit of the case was considered and the review was allowed in favour of the assessee, when the assessee became entitled to have the refund. No positive action was taken by the respondents to effect the refund, who, on the other hand, were enjoying the said amount generating interest. Since there was no other alternative, the assessee approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.16608 of 2007, which culminated in Ext.P4 judgment dated 29.06.2007, whereby the excess amount was directed to be repaid with R.P. No. 1058 of 2010 IN W.P.(C)No. 22814 of 2010 -:3:- “eligible interest”. 5. The above judgment was not complied with, which made the assessee to approach this Court by filing Contempt Case, leading to Ext.P6 order dated 25.01.2008, wherein the only contention put forth from the part of the respondent/contemnor was to have some more time to satisfy the liability; which was granted and the Contempt Case was closed. The position remained to be the same, which made the assessee to file another Contempt Case (No.1127 of 2008) which led to Ext.P7 order dated 14.08.08 holding that 'Interest' was a matter for adjudication and accordingly, the issue was directed to be pursued before the concerned authority. 6. Pursuant to Ext.P7 order, the issue was considered by the concerned authority who passed Ext.P8 order dated 24.02.2010 finding that a sum of `74,316/- was liable to be paid as 'interest'; which was accordingly ordered to be paid to the assessee. It was thereafter that Ext.P9 communication was issued from the office of the Deputy Commissioner stating that the amount mentioned in Ext.P8 was not liable to be paid. R.P. No. 1058 of 2010 IN W.P.(C)No. 22814 of 2010 -:4:- 7. Challenging Ext.P9, the assessee approached this Court through the above Writ Petition and it was after considering all the facts and circumstances as above, that the matter was finalized as per the impugned judgment; more so when Ext.P8 order passed after adjudication of the issue had attained finality; which could not have been watered down through Ext.P9 communication. This being the position, there is no 'error apparent on the face of the records' to invoke the power of review. As such, interference is declined and the Review Petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ttb