IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22814 of 2010(B) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THRESIAMMA GEORGE, KARIMPANAL CHAITHANYA KANJIRAPPILLY. BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL TAX,KANJIRAPPALY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOTTAYAM. 3. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.VINOD CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 22814 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The grievance projected in the Writ Petition is with regard to the non granting of interest in respect of the belated refund under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act. 2. The cause of action relates to more than two decades ago. During the pendency of the proceedings before the appellate Tribunal, pursuant to the interim order dated 18.02.1991, the petitioner had to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Finally, the case projected by the petitioner was upheld, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed on 10.01.1995 and the petitioner become eligible to get the refund. 3. Nothing positive transpired for several years, with regard to the refund. Finally, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) 16608/2007, wherein Ext.P4 judgment was passed by this Court directing to effect payment with interest in the manner specified therein. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P4, the matter was considered by the concerned officer who passed revised order on 19.07.2007 giving effect to the order passed by the Tribunal. Still, the amount was not satisfied by way of interest, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing CCC 34/2008, which was disposed of on 25.01.2008, giving appropriate 2 WP(C) No. 22814/2010 directions granting time to satisfy the due amount as per Ext.P6 order. Since the same was not given effect, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court again by filing CCC 1127/2008, which culminated in Ext.P7 order. Pursuant to this, the matter was considered and Ext.P8 order was passed on 24.02.2010, whereby it was held that the petitioner was eligible to get Rs.74,316/- towards 'interest' in respect of the belated payment. While so, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P9 dated 13.05.2010, holding that he has been instructed by the Commissioner to inform the petitioner that the petitioner need not be given any interest as per the relevant provisions of the Act. The petitioner is aggrieved of the said direction, contending that the same is contrary to the statutory prescription and also the judgment passed by this Court. 4. Heard the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) as well who did not raise any dispute with regard to the sequence of events as narrated by the petitioner. 5. During the course of hearing, it is hereby brought to the notice of this Court that Section 68(4) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act clearly stipulates that the party who is entitled to get refund is eligible to obtain 'interest' at the rate of 15% per annum. This being the position, this Court finds that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason on the part of the 2nd respondent and the Commissioner to contend that the petitioner need 3 WP(C) No. 22814/2010 not be given any interest at all. That apart, pursuant to the various judgments and orders, the matter attained finality by virtue of Ext.P8 passed by the 1st respondent, whereby it has been clearly held that the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.74,316/- towards interest in respect of the belated payment and this order stands in tact. The communication issued by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P9 cannot water down the scope of the said order under any circumstance, more so, when the statutory prescription is quite unambiguous. In the above circumstances, the respondents are directed to release the amount covered by Ext.P8 to the petitioner forthwith, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc