IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 33315 of 2007(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PARCO DIOGNOSTIC & RESEARCH CENTRE (P) LTD., INDRAPRASTHAM, POST BOX NO.2301, ARTS COLLEGE P.O.,MEENCHANDA, KOZHIKODE-673 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DR. P.C. SHAJI. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, III CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dmb WP(C).No. 33315 of 2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1:- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.3.2004 IN W.P(C)NO.10708/2004 P2:- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 14.2.2005 IN W.P(C)NO.5171/2005 P3:- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 21.2.2005 IN W.P(C)NO.5918/2005 P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2006 IN W.P(C)NO.5918/2005 P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.1.2007 IN W.P(C)NO.5171/2005 P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.1.2007 IN W.P(C)NO.10708/2004 P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.4.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R3 CLAIMING REFUND OF RS.20,700/- P8:- COPY OF THE REPRESEBTATION DAATED 16.4.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R3 CLAIMING REFUND OF RS.3,70,000/- P9:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.4.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R3 CLAIMING REFUND OF RS.3,26,600/- RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 33315 OF 2007 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 3rd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the non-refunding of the entry tax already satisfied by the petitioner and also as to the non- release the 'bank guarantee' furnished, pursuant to the direction given by this Court earlier. 2. The petitioner imported two 'MRI scanning machines' and a 'Colour dopler' from abroad, which were detained, demanding entry tax to be satisfied by the petitioner. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing three different writ petitions, because of the different cause of action arose at different points of time. The above Writ Petitions, viz. W. P. (C) No.s 10708/2004, 5171/ 2005 and 5918/2005, were admitted by this Court and as per Ex. P1 to P3 interim orders, the petitioner was directed to satisfy 25 % of the entry tax demanded and to furnish 'bank guarantee' for the balance amount. Later, pursuant to the law declared by the division bench of this Court in Thressiamma L Chirayil Vs. State of Kerala (ILR 2007 (1) Ker. 61), the writ petitions filed by the petitioner were allowed as per Exs. P4 to P6 judgments and the petitioner was permitted to move the W.P. (C) No. 33315 of 2007 2 competent authority for getting 'refund' of the amounts already deposited and to have the bank guarantees released. Based on the above verdicts, the petitioner filed Exts. P7 to P9 petitions before the 3rd respondent as early as on 16.04.2007. But, since the 3rd respondent has chosen to keep the same in the cold storage, the petitioner is stated as constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in spite of the direction given by this Court vide Ext. P4 to P6 judgments, enabling the petitioner to file an application for the refund as well as for releasing sthe bank guarantee, Exts. P7 to P9 applications preferred are not being acted upon by the third respondent stating that no time limit has been fixed by this Court and further that the State/Revenue has already approached the Apex Court by filing an SLP against the verdict passed by the Division Bench and that the same is pending. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the matters pertaining to entry tax have been tagged on together, to be heard, by the Apex Court. 5. In the above circumstance, the third respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders on Exts. P7 to P9 petitions for refund, after ascertaining whether any SLP has been preferred in respect of Ext. P4 to P6 judgments and whether any interim order has been granted by the Apex W.P. (C) No. 33315 of 2007 3 Court therein. The final orders as above shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd