IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20389 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.TECHNO ENGINEERING CORPORATION, C-3102, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER V.R.NAIR, BY ADV. MR. E.P.GOVINDAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR SQUAD NO.,1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM,. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM,. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 20389 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 22nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The goods transported by the petitioner were intercepted by the first respondent on 30.12.2005, leading to notice issued under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act, suspecting evasion of tax and demanding the security deposit. Subsequently, pursuant to the revised notice demanding cash security of Rs.25,000/-, the same was satisfied by the petitioner on 2.1.2006. Thereafter the steps were finalized by the concerned authority, who passed Ext.P1 order holding that, the proceeding taken against the petitioner was not correct or sustainable and accordingly, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- satisfied by the petitioner, was directed to be refunded. Eventhough, the said order was passed on 11.12.2006, the amount was not disbursed to the petitioner till date, despite many a representation submitted by the petitioner as borne by Exts.P2 and P2(a). On coming to know that the relevant files were not available before the concerned authority, the petitioner also moved the second respondent by filing Ext.P3 representation for transmitting the files. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the favourable orders, as stated as above, the amount is still kept in the hands of the department, which hence is sought to be intercepted in the Writ Petition. WP (C) No. 20389 of 2009 : 2 : 2. The legal position is very much clear by virtue of Section 89 (4) of the KVAT Act, whereby it is clearly stipulated that the amount ordered to be refunded to the assessee has to be paid within 90 days, failing which the department is liable to disburse the said amount with interest at the rate of 10 % per annum as specified. Considering the fact that the order was passed as early as on 11.12.2006 and since the amount is still to be disbursed, it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to get back the amount, as provided under Section 89 (2) of the Act. 3. In the above circumstances, the first respondent is directed to refund the amount ordered as per Ext.P1 order, with interest accrued thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd