IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 583 of 2011(W) ---------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- SRI. G.AJITH KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, M/S. TRAVANCORE AUTO GLASS, MATTOOR, KALADY. BY ADVS. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ANGAMALY – 683 572. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.VI, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD – 678 001. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), ALUVA – 683 101. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM – 695 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.583 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against demand raised for recovery of tax amount due from the petitioner, pertaining to assessment completed for the year 2006-07. According to the petitioner, by virtue of Ext.P2 proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent an amount of Rs.36,654/- is remaining due for refund and request made by the petitioner to adjust such amount against the demand raised under Ext.P1 was not considered. 2. During pendency of this writ petition, by virtue of an interim order the 2nd respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the refund application which was pending before that authority. It is conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that the refund has already been effected in compliance of the interim direction. W.P.(C).583/11 -2- 3. The petitioner raises a further contention challenging the demand for interest with respect to the year 2006-07. According to the petitioner, since the amount due for refund was remaining unpaid for a considerable period, there is no justification in demanding payment of interest from him. It is pertinent to note that the levy of interest is governed by provisions contained in the statute and the petitioner could not be absolved from any such liability merely on the basis that there occurred delay in effecting refund of certain amounts due. Of course, statute provides adequate provisions which enables the petitioner to claim interest on the amounts which remained due for refund. The petitioner will be at liberty to claim interest on the amount already refunded, if permissible under law. 4. Since the refund due to the petitioner has already been effected, I do not find any further reason to interfere with the recovery steps initiated for realisation of amounts due under Ext.P6 order of assessment. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. W.P.(C).583/11 -3- 5. However, it is made clear that rights if any available to the petitioner to claim interest on the amount refunded will stand reserved. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb True copy P.A to Judge