IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27965 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SEASON RUBBERS PVT.LTD, KOOVAPPALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.THOMAS THOMAS BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT: ------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.27965 of 2010-U ---------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T Direction sought for in this writ petition is to give effect to Ext.P2 appellate order passed by the Tribunal. Assessment under KGST Act was completed against the petitioner for the year 2003- 04, under Section 17(3) of KGST Act. In second appeal filed before the Tribunal, it was found that the appellant is entitled to refund of purchase tax paid on the turn over of Rubber used for the manufacture of Centrifuged Latex and Centrifuged Rubber. On setting aside the first appellate order, the matter was remanded by the Tribunal to the respondent for passing fresh orders in accordance with the direction contained therein. Ext.P2 appellate order was passed by the Tribunal on 21.6.2010. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent is not finalizing the matter and not issuing modified orders effecting refund, inspite of lapse of considerable period. 2. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that Ext.P2 order was received by the respondent only on 3.8.2010 W.P(C) No.27965 of 2010-U 2 and that a proposal has already been submitted by the respondent for filing revision petition before this Court, against Ext.P2 order. It is also submitted that the period of limitation prescribed for filing revision petition will expire only on 3.11.2010. Since the revenue is proposing a revision against Ext.P2 order, the refund could not be effected, is the submission. 3. Having considered facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner could not be denied of the benefit of Ext.P2 by prolonging the matter indefinitely under the premise that the revenue is proposing to file revision. It is for the revenue to take steps on urgent basis and to get appropriate interim orders, in case they are aggrieved by Ext.P2 order. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to give effect to Ext.P2 order within a period of three months from today, provided no interim order staying operation of Ext.P2 is obtained from this Court, within that time. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge