IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1065 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER (FINANCE). BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERICIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. OFFICE OF THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 1065 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is against the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of Input Tax Credit as per Section 11 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act 2003. 2. The sequence of events as revealed from the pleadings and the Exhibits produced reveals that the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 notice to submit all the documents so as to sustain the claim for refund. As per Ext.P2, the petitioner wanted to have some more time, since the audit of the accounts for the year 2007-08 was not finalized by the auditors of the Company. It was also pointed out that Form No.21 C could be filed within one year from the date of export and hence that the notice was pre-mature. 3. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the point with regard to the furnishing of Form No. 21 C was accepted by the 2nd respondent. However, observing that the petitioner failed to produce the requisite documents, the claim for refund was rejected. Subsequently, on completing the audit, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 submission before the 1st respondent stating that all the requisite forms WP(C) No.1065/2010 2 and documents were kept ready and that the petitioner was very much ready to submit all these documents as per form No. 21 C; seeking to accept the same and to pass appropriate orders for facilitating the refund. But after considering the said request, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P5 order stating that Ext.P4 letter submitted by the petitioner could not be entertained and that the remedy of the petitioner was only by way of appeal to be preferred before the Appellate Authority against the impugned order “by requesting to reconsider the matter afresh” and accordingly the request was rejected which in turn is subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition. 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the order passed by the 1st respondent vide Ext.P5 is very much in conformity with the relevant provisions of law and no mistake or irregularity could be attributed under any circumstance. True, the remedy of the petitioner as stated therein is to prefer an appeal. However, it is very much relevant to note that even according to the first respondent, remedy by way of appeal has been suggested so as to enable the petitioner to have the matter re considered afresh. In other words, there is no case for the first respondent that the matter is not liable to be entertained and that even the first respondent is very much aware as to the actual facts and figures; particularly as to the necessity to re consider the matter afresh in the light WP(C) No.1065/2010 3 of the documents produced. 5. This Court does not find it necessary to relegate the petitioner to avail remedy by way of appeal so as to have the matter reconsidered. Accordingly, Exts.P3 and P5 are set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter on the basis of the documents stated as being presented, as shown in Ext.P4, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This exercise shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc