IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No. 28317 of 2001(U) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- UNITED ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLLAM, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER MR.C.R.GOPINATHAN NAIR. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER(ASST.)IV, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM. BY G.P. SRI.PRADEEP THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.46017/2001 IN O.P. NO.28317/2001 DISMISSED: 12.12.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.6.11.1998 ISSUED BY R1. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.6.9.2000 IN THE REVISION PASSED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER. P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.27.8.2001 PASSED BY R2. P4: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.6.9.2001 ISSUED BY R1 TO PETITIONER. P5: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.20.2.99 ISSUED BY DY. COMMISSIONER. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.28317 of 2001 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging notice issued under Section 45A of the KGST Act for irregular claim of concessional rate of tax for the goods namely, Electricity meters sold to KSEB. I heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a regular supplier of meters to KSEB which was enjoying concessional rate at 4% on sales made to KSEB. However, for the period 1.1.1994 to 31.3.1995, there was no notification providing for concessional rate of tax on supplies to KSEB. The KSEB without noticing the discontinuance of the benefit, continued to claim concessional rate by furnishing declaration in Form 18 prescribed under Section 5(3) of the KGST Act. The petitioner claimed benefit based on the declaration. However, later, the mistake was noticed and tax at full rate was paid by the petitioner even before raising demand. When interest was demanded under Section 23(3) on differential tax, the petitioner challenged the same in revision before the Commissioner. Even though Commissioner upheld petitioner's challenge against interest, he directed the officer to initiate 2 penalty proceedings. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Commissioner, Ext.P4 notice was issued by the officer which is under challenge in this O.P. I do not think there is any need to consider the merits of the case because later Government issued notification extending the benefit of concessional rate to KSEB for the above period i.e. from 1.1.1994 to 31.3.1995. This is conceded by the Government Pleader also. In view of the subsequent development, the impugned notice namely, Ext.P4 and the direction issued by the Commissioner vide Ext.P3 are quashed and the O.P. is allowed to the above extent. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms