IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 OP.No. 24564 of 2001(Y) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MRS. ANNU JOSE, PROPRIETRIX, NEEDLE CRAFT INSTITUTE, II/168, METHANAM ROAD, EDAPALLY, COCHIN 682 024 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.THOMAS VELLAPPALLY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT IV), SPECIAL CIRCLE III,ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SRI. TEKCHAND. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 40164 OF 2001 IN OP 24564 OF 2001 DISMISSED 29.5.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.2.1999 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.10.2000 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 8.1.2001 EXT.P3(a) TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 8.1.2001 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 9.5.2001 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 28.3.2001 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF RR NOTICE DATED 28.5.2001 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 7.6.2001 FROM PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 24564 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging interest demanded for the year 1996-97 under Section 23(3) or 23(3A) of the KGST Act. According to the petitioner, demand was made for the first time after revision of original assessment in which exemption was granted and therefore no interest is payable from the date of filing of return. Since a Division Bench of this Court has decided the issue in STRV 339 of 2003, I feel the matter should be considered by the assessing officer afresh. O.P. is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider petitioner's liability for interest in the light of the above decision and levy interest only if it is permissible and if demand of interest is cancelled in fresh proceedings he will grant refund of the interest already paid. However, if demand is raised the payment already made will be adjusted and balance if any, can be recovered from the petitioner. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent for compliance. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2