IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 29023 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.CORAL REWINDING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, 150, VILLARASAMPATTI NAAL ROAD, NASIYANUR ROAD, VILLARASAMPATTI .P.O., ERODE-638 107, TAMILNADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.RAJARAJAN. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERATION) KSEB, MOOLAMATTOM.P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 589. R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 29023 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application before the 1st respondent seeking refund of amounts deducted as TDS by the 2nd respondent, which is evident from Ext.P4 certificate. According to the petitioner the works undertaken by them with the 2nd respondent, which is the work of repairs pertaining to equipments and allied works of Hydro Electric Projects, will not attract levy of tax under Section 6 (1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The above aspect was clarified by the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in Ext.P1 order which pertains to assessment of the petitioner for the previous year of 2005-06. It is submitted that pursuant to Ext.P1, the first respondent had issued refund orders as per Ext.P2 and that the petitioner had obtained Ext.P3 certificate from the first respondent to the effect that 2 WP(C) No. 29023/2010 there was no transfer of property in goods involved in execution of works undertaken by the petitioner and hence the petitioner is not liable for payment of Kerala Value Added Tax under the works contract. It is contended that inspite of Ext.P3 certificate, 2nd respondent had deducted tax amount from the contract bills, as evidenced from Ext.P4. 2. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner is fully eligible for refund of the TDS amount and inspite of Ext.P5 request, pending for the last one month the first respondent has not taken any decision on the basis of Ext.P5 application is the grievance. 3. I am not proposing to enter upon any findings regarding eligibility for the refund. It is for the first respondent to take appropriate decision considering all the above narrated aspects. Hence I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition can be disposed of on issuing necessary directions to the first respondent in this regard. 3 WP(C) No. 29023/2010 3. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 application, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc