IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 30433 of 2010(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SELCO SOLAR LIGHT PRIVATE LIMITED, 742, 15TH CROSS, 6TH PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 078, REPRESENTED BY K.REVATHI. BY ADVS. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U, SRI.K.N.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SALES TAX INSPECTOR, CTCP, WALAYAR- 673 001. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD – 673 002. 3. INSPECTING ASISTANT COMMISSIONER, CTCP, WALAYAR – 673 001. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM – 682 016. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. R1 TO R5 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 30433 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner company is engaged in manufacture and sale of Solar Energy Devices. Goods transported by the petitioner was intercepted on 1-8-2002 demanding payment of Entry Tax to the tune of Rs.1,28,718/-. The said amount of security deposit demanded was remitted by the petitioner under protest, through Ext.P2 Demand Draft dated 7-8- 2002. Subsequently, the 1st respondent completed the enquiry and ordered to convert the security deposit into penalty, against which the petitioner had approached the appellate authority. In Ext.P4 order the 4th respondent appellate authority found that the sale of Solar Energy Device was fully exempted from payment of any tax, as far as dealers under KGST and CST Act are concerned with effect from the year 2000. Therefore it was ordered that there is no liability for payment of tax under section 3 of the Entry Tax Act. Under such circumstances, the order W.P.(C) No. 30433/2010 2 imposing penalty was held to be unsustainable and the appeal was allowed. The petitioner thereafter approached the respondents seeking refund of the amount of security deposit. In Ext.P5 letter, the 3rd respondent intimated that the refund has to be effected by the 2nd respondent and necessary direction was already issued to that authority to do the needful in the matter. Grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of Ext.P5 letter issued as early as in the year 2006, no refund was effected so far, inspite of repeated requests made, including Ext.P7 reminder letter issued to the 2nd respondent. 2. Heard; learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents. On the basis of instructions, it is submitted that the amount is liable to be refunded and that steps will be taken for effecting refund without any further delay. 3. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to take the needful steps and to effect refund of the amount of security deposit remitted by the petitioner, in view of Ext.P4 order, W.P.(C) No. 30433/2010 3 as early as possible at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. The respondents shall also consider the demand of the petitioner for payment of interest due on the amount to be refunded, as provided under the relevant statute. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.