IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15277 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.BINDU JEWELLERY ASHWINI NAGAR, KASARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI ABILASH K.V. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (KVAT) SPECIAL CIRLCE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KASARAGOD 671121 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE 673 001. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15277 of 2011(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.1.2.2007 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN KVATA NO.81/07 DTD.5.10.2009 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE MODIFIED ORDER DTD.11.5.2011 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.15.6.2007 FOR 2007-08 EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.12.5.2008 FOR 2008-09 EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.8.5.2009 FOR 2009-10 EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.29.3.2011 EXT.P8: COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING EXCESS TAX PAID RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.15277 of 2011-H ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T With respect to the assessment year 2006-07, the petitioner had filed appeal against the order of compounding issued by the assessing authority. It is evident from Ext.P2 that the 2nd respondent appellate authority had reversed the order of compounding, finding that the purchase tax under Section 6(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) need not be reckoned for arriving the tax payable at the compounded rate, under Section 8(f) of the Act. On the basis of such finding, the assessing authority was directed to modify computation of tax payable under Section 8(f) of the KVAT Act. 2. It is stated that in compliance of the appellate order, a modified order was issued by the 1st respondent assessing authority, as evidenced from Ext.P3, on 11.5.2011. Grievance of the petitioner is that, with respect to three subsequent years, the petitioner sought W.P(C) No.15277 of 2011-H 2 modification of the compounding orders on the basis of Exts.P2 and P3 orders. But as evident from Ext.P7, the modifications sought for were rejected holding that the compounding rate has been reckoned on the basis of the tax paid by the petitioner with respect to the year 2006-07, which is taken as basis for fixing the compounded tax. Grievance of the petitioner is that, the view taken in Ext.P7 is patently wrong in view of the modification already granted. Further grievance expressed by the petitioner is that inspite of modification effected through Ext.P3 and in inspite of repeated requests made, the 1st respondent has not taken any steps to refund the excess amount paid. Hence the petitioner is approaching this Court seeking necessary directions. 3. Heard; learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents. It is evident that Ext.P7 order was issued by the 1st respondent as early as on 29.3.2011, ie: well before passing of Ext.P3 modified order. It is evident that in view of the modification granted under Ext.P3, reasonings mentioned in Ext.P7 order is unsustainable. W.P(C) No.15277 of 2011-H 3 Therefore, it is left open to the petitioner to seek rectification of Ext.P7 order on the basis of Ext.P3. Needless to say that if the petitioner approaches the 1st respondent with any such rectification application, the needful shall be done without any further delay. If the same criteria is applicable with respect to the subsequent orders also, such relief shall be given by the 1st respondent. 4. With respect to refund, by virtue of Ext.P3 order, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the 1st respondent to take effective steps within a time limit to be stipulated. Therefore, if the petitioner makes any request for refund of the amount, the same shall be considered and appropriate decision shall be taken thereof by the 1st respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such request. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab