IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 5435 of 2008(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD., V.P. MARIKAR ROAD, NEAR TOLL JUNCTION, EDAPALLY, COCHIN-24, REPRESENTED BY IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE EXECUTIVE, K.RAMOHAN. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, MATTANCHERY AT ALUVA. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.5435 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. Two complaints have been raised by the petitioner before me. Firstly, it is contended that the petitioner came to be assessed to Entry Tax. Entry Tax itself has been struck down by this court as unconstitutional. It is submitted that the petitioner has paid Rs.One Lakh towards the liability under the Entry Tax, and it has also furnished Bank Guarantee for the balance amount. This court having struck down the Entry Tax itself as unconstitutional, there is no warrant for retaining the Bank Guarantee, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. He also submits that the appellate authority by Ext.P6 has directed to refund the amount of Rs.21,539/- collected from the petitioner towards security deposit as the penalty proceedings came to be cancelled. It is submitted that the said amount has not been refunded. 3. Learned Government Pleader points out that though a Division Bench of this court struck down Entry Tax, the matter is engaging the attention of the Supreme Court. WPC. 5435/2008. 2 4. Since the matter has not become final, I am not inclined to discharge the Bank Guarantee. But as far as the further complaint of the petitioner, namely, that refund has not been effected despite Ext.P6 order, there is merit in the complaint of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to refund the amount as ordered in Ext.P6 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb