IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20014 of 2008(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S.VIKING RUBBERS (P)LTD. MATHA SHOPPING ARCADE, THODUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MARYKUTTY ISSAC. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISIONER, DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, IDUKKI AT KATTAPPANA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, VIKHAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 20014 OF 2008 G -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the first respondent to modify the assessments for the years 1998 - 1999, 1999 - 2000, 2000 - 2001 and 2001 - 2002 in the light of Ext.P1 and refund the excess payments with interest as provided under Section 44(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 2. Petitioner is an assessee engaged in manufacturing and selling hawai chappals. According to petitioner, there was a dispute relating to the rate of tax which was settled in Thamarappally Rubber Products v. Additional Sales Tax Officer & Others ((1994) 94 STC 178) and subsequent decisions. By Ext.P1, the Appellate Authority allowed the Appeal filed by the petitioner and directed the assessing authority to grant the benefit of concessional rate which was confirmed by Ext.P2 by WPC. 20014/08 G 2 the Tribunal. Complaint is that the first respondent has not yet modified the assessments for the said years in pursuance of Ext.P1 and refunded the excess payment as provided under Section 44 (4) of the Act. I find that Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal is dated 21.3.2006. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to implement Ext.P1 and to refund the amount due to the petitioner as per law, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, if Ext.P2 has become final. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy// PS to Judge