IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 9734 of 2009(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.A.PAREED PILLAI, BRIGHT INDIAN PLYWOODS, MEKALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ANGAMALY. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY AT ALUVA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).9734/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE R1 EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.31.01.09 ISSUED BY R1 EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE REPLY DT.16.2.09 SUBMITTED BEFORE R1 EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT.19.2.09 PASSED BY THE R1 EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING ENTRY TAX REMITTANCE FOR THE YEAR 2006-07 EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE VAT RETURN FOR THE MONTH JULY 2008 FILED BEFORE R2 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL okb //True Copy// P.A. to Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.9734 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 order, through which the 1st respondent had rejected the claim for refund of tax raised by the petitioner. The petitioner had claimed refund of tax with respect to the assessment year 2006- 07. The claim pertains to excess input tax credit, to be allowed. It is mentioned in Ext.P4 that while considering the refund application, the 1st respondent found that documents like stock inventory, audited balance sheet, and proof regarding export sales, are not produced by the petitioner in order to verify the eligibility for refund. It is further mentioned that inspite of notice issued calling for production of such records the petitioner failed to produce such records, but only sought time for production of such records. Therefore the 1st respondent had rejected the claim for refund. 2. According to the petitioner Ext.P4 is not an order sustainable due to lack of jurisdiction and propriety, because the assessment files of the petitioner stood already transferred to the 2nd respondent and hence the 1st respondent could not have dealt with the refund application. It may be true that the assessment with respect to the further years might have been W.P.(C).9734/09-J 2 entrusted with the 2nd respondent, since the turnover of the petitioner had exceeded the limits prescribed, as part of the administrative arrangements. But the assessment pertaining to the year concerned was completed by the 1st respondent and hence it cannot be contended that the 1st respondent is not having jurisdiction. Further it is evident from Ext.P4 that the assessment records were available with the 1st respondent and only after verification of the assessment records, the petitioner was called for to produce further documents. 3. However, it is noticed that Ext.P4 is an order which is appealable as per the statute. Therefore the petitioner can approach the appellate authority and produce documents in proof of his claim. Since I am not impressed by the contentions regarding jurisdiction, it is not proper for this court to enter upon into merits of the claim and to take a decision. 4. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P4 before the appellate authority in statutory appeal. Needless to say that the appellate authority while taking into consideration of the appeal or petitions if any filed seeking condonation of delay shall consider about filing of this writ petition before this court. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb