IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 272 of 2001(G) --------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.RAJARAM CHEMICAL COMPANY, MATTANCHERRY, REP. BY V.MANOHARAN NAMBOODIRIPAD, MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT)II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRLCE, MATTANCHERRY. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.372/2001 IN OP NO.272/2001 DISMISSED: 18.1.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASST. ORDER DT.6.10.99 FOR THE YEAR 95-96 OF R1. P2: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.24.10.2000 SENT BY PETITIONER. P3: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.19.7.2000 OF R1. P4: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DT.28.7.2000 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO R1. P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.28.7.2000 OF R1. P6: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE U/S.23(3) OF R1 DT.15.12.2000. P7: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.5.6.2000 IN EVERSHINE PLASTICS V. ASST. COMMR. OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.16.12.99 IN CMP 40896/99 IN OP 24361/99 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.272 of 2001 .................................................................... Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order whereunder interest under Section 23(3A) of the KGST Act is demanded on the petitioner for the assessment year 1995-96. Senior counsel contended that Section 23 (3A) came into force later and has no application. Government Pleader submitted that petitioner is liable to pay interest under Section 23(3) of the KGST Act itself and it is only a misquoting of the Section by the Assessing Officer. I find force in this contention because since petitioner has not furnished the declarations for availing concessional rate, the tax due under return at full rate was payable by the petitioner on due date as provided under Rule 21(7). Therefore, interest is rightly demanded on the petitioner under Section 23(3) of the KGST Act, though Section 23(3A) is wrongly stated by the officer. However, having regard to the fact that amnesty benefit was available in 2004 during pendency of O.P., the petitioner is granted benefit under the said scheme by which petitioner is entitled to reduction of 40% interest payable under Section 23(3). Accordingly O.P. is 2 disposed of reducing the interest to 60% of the total demand and waiving balance 40% provided petitioner pays the balance interest within two weeks from date of receipt of copy of this judgment The petitioner will produce copy of this judgment and make payment as above, failing which waiver granted will stand vacated on default. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms