IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26248 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.WOOD RICH VENTURES (P) LTD., "KRISHNA VIHAR", 50/127, OPP.GOVT.HIGH SCHOOL, MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682036, A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI AJITH A MOOPPAN. BY ADVS. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE III, ERNAKULAM 682011. 2. THE DY.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM 682011. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 26249 OF 2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) Nos. 26248 & 26249 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT These two writ petitions are filed by sister concerns challenging Ext.P1 order in both these cases, whereby applications submitted for allowing credit of input tax and for refund of excess input tax were rejected. In both these cases the petitioners submitted applications in Form 21CC as provided under Rule 47A of the the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules (KVAT Rules). The 1st respondent had issued notices (Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.26248 of 2010 and Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) No.26249 of 2010) intimating proposal to reject refund applications for want of certain documents specified therein. The petitioners were given opportunity of personal hearing and an opportunity to produce documents if any available, against the proposal for rejection. In the impugned orders it is mentioned that in spite of receipt of such notices the petitioners have not responded within the W.P.(C) No. 26248/2010 & con. case 2 time stipulated and hence the refund applications were rejected. 2. Petitioners have a further grievance that the 1st respondent is not finalizing assessments under the C.S.T. Act pertaining to the year in question and unless the assessments under the C.S.T. Act is finalized, the refund cannot be ordered even if the credit of in put tax is accepted. 3. In a statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent in both the cases, it is specifically mentioned that the petitioners have failed to produce C Forms, H Forms, Bill of Lading and receipts of payments through Bank against the export, along with the annual returns. Therefore, the credit of in put tax could not be allowed without production of those documents. Further it is mentioned that the petitioner ought to have produced documents in proof of payment of advance tax in the check post along with full particulars of such payments. It is mentioned that even though the petitioners have produced some C Forms and bill of ladings, W.P.(C) No. 26248/2010 & con. case 3 after receipt of the proposal notices, they have not produced the complete documents as requested. However, it is contended that, against the impugned orders rejecting refund the petitioners have got remedy by way of appeal as provided under the Statute and hence these writ petitions are not maintainable. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that on receipt of the proposals for rejecting the refund applications, the petitioners submitted explanations supported by necessary declaration forms and other documents. But those explanations could be submitted only after expiry of the time stipulated, and by the time the respondents have rejected the refund applications. It is further submitted that all the necessary documents required for establishing the claim for credit of in put tax is readily available with them and that they are willing to produce such documents before the 1st respondent for establishing their claims. 5. Under the above circumstances, even though the W.P.(C) No. 26248/2010 & con. case 4 statute provides a remedy by way of appeal, I am inclined to direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter on the basis of the explanations and documents produced by the petitioners. This especially because, it is evident from the impugned orders that the authority had not looked into the merits of objections and contentions raised by the petitioners based on the documents. Therefore I am of the opinion that a further opportunity in this regard can be afforded to the petitioners. 6. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders in both these cases are hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to re-consider the matter and pass fresh orders taking note of the objections and documents produced by the petitioners. Before finalizing the same the petitioners shall be given a chance for production of any further documents and an opportunity of personal hearing. Orders in this regard shall be issued at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C) No. 26248/2010 & con. case 5 7. The 1st respondent is also directed to finalize the pending assessments under the C.S.T. Act pertaining to the petitioners, at the earliest possible. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.