IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 24495 of 2010(J) --------------------------------- (TA.161/2005 of STAT ADDL.BENCH, KOTTAYAM) .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- KURIAN ABRAHAM PVT. LTD., OOPPOOTTIL BUILDINGS, K.K.ROAD, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.A.JACOB. BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ASSESSMENT-III, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 24495 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Assessment completed against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, with respect to the year 1999-00 was challenged before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. In Ext.P3 order the appeal was allowed holding that the petitioner is entitled for refund of purchase tax already paid. The matter was remanded back to the assessing authority for passing modified order. Ext.P3 order was issued by the Tribunal as early as on 06.04.2009. But the assessing authority has not so far issued the modified order and no refund was effected in view of the directions contained in Ext.P3. The petitioner submitted Exts.P4 and P5 requests claiming refund and also claiming payment of interest on the amount due for refund. The petitioner points out Section 44 (4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, which entitles the assessees to get interest on the amounts ordered to be refunded, if no refund is effected within a period of 90 days. Therefore, the petitioner seeks direction against the respondents for finalisation of the matter in view of Ext.P3, at the earliest. 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that against Ext.P3 order, the revenue had filed revision petition before this Court as ST Rev. No. 142/2010 along with 2 WP(C) No. 24495/2010 petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision. It is further submitted that since delay has not been condoned, the respondent could not move for a stay in the matter. Therefore the respondent is not in a position to modify the assessment in accordance with the direction contained in Ext.P3, is the contention. 3. I noticed that the order of the Tribunal was passed as early as in April, 2009. More than 1 ½ years have lapsed since the date of the order. There is no justification on the part of the respondent in keeping the matter indefinitely pending merely on the ground that the revenue has attempted a revision against such order, at a belated stage. Under the above circumstances, I am inclined to issue necessary directions for complying with Ext.P3. 4. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to issue modified orders and to effect refund if any due, in compliance of the directions contained in Ext.P3, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that in the meanwhile if any interim stay is obtained in favour of the revenue, refund need be made only in terms of such interim order. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc