IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 2143 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.BBL MEDI SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. KAINIKKARA SHOPPING COMPLEX, PATTICAUD, TRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIJU JOSEPH, AGED 32, S/O.K.C.JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.JOMON.P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAXES, STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THEL APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 3. THE SALES TAX OFFICER (ENQUIRY), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALE TAX, PALAKKAD. 4. SALES TAX INSPECTOR (ENQUIRY) SALES TAX CHECK POST, VALAYAR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER Mr.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 2143 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT The goods belonging to the petitioner were intercepted and detained by the departmental authorities, imposing a penalty; whereupon the petitioner was forced to furnish sufficient security for getting the goods released. Subsequently, the impugned order was subjected to challenge by filing appeal before the second respondent, which culminated in Ext.P4 order dated 25.09.2004, whereby the appellate authority found that the impugned order dated 18.08.2003 passed by the Sales Tax Officer (E) Walayar, imposing a penalty of Rs.5,400/- on the petitioner was wrong, unfit and unsustainable. Accordingly, it was set aside as per Ext.P4 order and the security deposit collected was ordered to be refunded. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court stating that despite the order passed by the appellate authority, the amounts are still retained at the hands of the departmental authorities and hence has sought for interference of this Court for return of amount with interest as provided under the statute; particularly since the respondents have turned down the request made by the petitioner in this regard by issuance of Ext.P5 lawyer notice. WPC NO.2143/2009 2 4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4, wherein it has been stated that copy of the appellate order was received only on 28.01.2008 “from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Check Post, Walayar”; however conveniently omitting to point out, when the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Check Post, Walayar had actually obtained the same. On going through Ext.P4 appellate order it is seen that a copy of the same was very much marked to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Walayar as well. There is no case for the respondents that the copy marked as aforesaid was not served to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Check post, Walayar on time. This being the position, the claim put forward by the petitioner for refunding the due amount with interest payable on the principal sum of Rs.5,400/- collected as security is very much sustainable. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, the concerned respondent is directed to disburse the amount Rs.5,400/- as covered by vide Ext.P4 appellate order, along with 'interest' as payable under the relevant provisions of law to the petitioner 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