IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25012 of 2010(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.KEMI VENEERS, CHELAKULAM, PATTIMATTOM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, M.M.MUJIB REHMAN. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT: ---------------------- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.25012 of 2010-B ---------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P8 order dated 29.5.2010, whereby the refund application preferred by the petitioner, in respect of the assessment year 2007- 08 for a sum of Rs.5,81,190/- has been rejected by the respondent, stating that the petitioner failed to produce the requisite materials to substantiate the claim. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in connection with the proceedings, Ext.P5 notice was issued to the petitioner asking for necessary objections to be submitted within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. Though the said notice is dated 13.5.2010, the learned counsel asserts that the same was served to the petitioner only on 17.10.2010 and this fact is borne out by the notice sent by registered post with postal acknowledgment due. This being the position, the rejection of the application as per Ext.P8 order passed on 29.5.2010, ie. even much prior to the service of Ext.P5 notice, is not liable to be sustained and hence is under challenge. W.P(C) No.25012 of 2010-B 2 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 11.8.2010, the learned Government Pleader was required to get necessary instructions as to the date of service of Ext.P5 notice. No positive instruction is stated as obtained in this regard and this being the position, this Court can only presume that the averments raised in the Writ Petition with reference to the materials on record cannot but be accepted, more so since Ext.P5 notice was sent by registered post and the date of despatch and service will be borne out by the relevant records. 4. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the matter requires to be re-considered by the respondent. Accordingly, Ext.P8 is set aside and the respondent is directed to re- consider the application preferred by the petitioner claiming refund, forming the subject matter of Ext.P5, after giving an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab