IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 36639 of 2001(J) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ NIRMALA AUTOMOBILES (P) LTD., CORNOR HOUSE, NANDAVANAM JN., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANTHOSH S. VALSALAM BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL SRI.ANIL K.NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, JILLA PANCHAYATH KOLLAM. 3. THE JILLA PANCHAYAT, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMECIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 59939 OF 2001 IN OP 36639 OF 2001 DISMISSED 9.1.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO. 064 DATED 26.3.1998 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO. 065 DATED 26.3.1998 DO.DO. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO. 066 DATED 26.3.1998 DO.DO. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 26.3.1998 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. 1101 0789/97-98 DATED 11.2.99 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. NAPL/99-2000 DATED 27.9.1999 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. NAPL/2000 DATED 10.2.2000 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.10.2001 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 36639 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, an automobile dealer, sold three ambulances to second respondent at concessional rate of sales tax charging 4% as against 10% normally payable. Second respondent issued declaration under notification SRO 1728/93 stating that purchaser is Government Department and is entitled to concessional rate of sales tax at 4%. Based on declaration issued, petitioner made sales at concessional rate. However, fourth respondent declined concessional rate stating that second respondent is not a Government department because according to him payment is made by the third respondent-Jilla Panchayat. Petitioner filed this O.P. for direction to the fourth respondent to accept the declarations and to grant refund of differential tax or in the alternative to direct respondents 2 and 3 to pay differential tax to the petitioner. Government Pleader submitted that second respondent is not a Government department and therefore concessional rate was not available to it under the notification. However, on the face of it, I feel 2 even if second respondent is not a Government department, it is fully under the control of the Government. There is nothing wrong in petitioner accepting the declarations issued by the second respondent declaring itself as a government department. Therefore petitioner is either entitled to be assessed at concessional rate or otherwise entitled to reimbursement of differential tax from respondents 2 and 3. Since there is no appearance for respondents 2 and 3, I direct the first respondent either to direct the fourth respondent to accept the declarations, revise the assessment at concessional rate and grand refund to the petitioner or otherwise direct respondents 2 or 3, as the case may be, to pay to the petitioner differential tax, which should be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent for compliance. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge 3