IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 11135 of 2005(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.T.M.V. AROMATICS (P) LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.T.V.RAJESH SHENOY. BY ADV. SRI.GOVINDAN E.P. SRI.ANTONY A.J. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ADDL. SALES TAX OFFICER-I, SALES TAX OFFICE, THRID CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM. 2. DY. TASHILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVADNRUM. BY G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE BY R2. P2: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.22.3.2000 BY R1. P3: TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DT.18.12.2003 IN STA.714/2000. P4: TRUE COPY OF TRIBUNAL ORDER DT.22.5.2004 IN T.A.663/03. P5: TRUE COPY OF MODIFIED ORDER DT.21.3.2005 FOR THE YEARS 1995-96 BY R1. P6: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.16.10.2000 FOR THE YEAR 1996-97 CST BY R1. P7: TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DT.11.12.2002 IN STA 1869/00. P8: TRUE COPY OF MODIFIED ORDER DT.23.3.2005 FOR THE YEAR 1996-97 CST BY R1. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.11135 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The W.P.(C) is filed challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of interest under Section 22(3) of the KGST Act for the year 1995-96. Similarly interest is seen demanded towards CST due for the year 1996-97. Government Pleader submitted that interest is payable for default committed in payment of tax due under the Act and Rules, even though demand is not raised. In other words, according to him, interest can be demanded for period of default in terms of the statute and such default need not be after service of notice of demand. He has relied on recent decision of Division Bench of this Court in S.T.Rev. No.339/2003. Even though counsel for the petitioner contended that interest cannot be demanded for any period before service of notice of demand, I do not think this court should decide the matter because the Assessing Officer himself has not adjudicated the matter. The W.P.(C) is accordingly disposed of directing the Assessing Officer to hear the petitioner and adjudicate the matter after verifying records and consider the liability for interest in the light of the latest decision of this court in S.T.Rev. No.339/2003. Before issuing adjudication order, a 2 proposal should be communicated to the petitioner and he should be given an opportunity to file objection and should also be heard. The Assessing Officer is directed to pass orders within two months from now. The petitioner will produce copy of this judgment for compliance. Interim orders of stay granted by this court will continue for three months and recovery thereafter will be based on revised orders. It will be open to the petitioner to claim amnesty benefit. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms