Kerala High Court
R.Gopinatha Kurup [Proprietor vs The Intelligence Officer
Author: Dama Seshadri Naidu
Bench: Antony Dominic, Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/24TH BHADRA, 1939
WA.No. 1863 of 2017
IN WP(C).11394/2017
--------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11394/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10-
08-2017
--------
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
----------------------------
R.GOPINATHA KURUP [PROPRIETOR],
ATCO, VADAKOTTU KAVU,
NEDUMPARAMBU.P.O, ALAMCODE,
ATTINGAL. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.SURESH BABU (CHERUNNIYOOR)
SRI.AJI V.DEV
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------------------
1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
SQUAD NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES,
ATTINGAL.P.O., ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(INTELLIGENCE),
COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC OFFICE,
VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE),
COMMERCIAL TAXES, TAX TOWERS,
KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695002
5. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
ATTINGAL P.O, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
6. THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
SASTHAMANGALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695010.
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC,
&
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
W. A. No.1863 of 2017
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2017
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
1. aThe appellant is a dealer under the KVAT Act. Proceedings under Section 47 of the Act were initiated against the appellant. Pending adjudication, appellant deposited `3,21,900/-, being 25% of the security demanded and got the consignment and vehicle released. Penalty was finally imposed by the competent authority which order was set aside by the first appellate authority as per Ext.P5. The state has filed a second appeal before the Thiruvananthapuram Bench of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal is pending. In the meantime, the appellant sought refund of the security deposit which was appropriated towards penalty. That demand was not W. A. No.1863 of 2017 -2- complied with. Therefore, the writ petition was filed.
2. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge declined the prayer and clarified that the appellant would be entitled to interest for the belated payment, on the disposal of the appeal. It is this judgment which is challenged before us.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader.
4. Though it is true that by Ext.P5 order, the appellant has become entitled for refund of the amount in question, fact remains that the appeal filed by the State is pending consideration of the Tribunal. Therefore, at this stage, a blanket order for refund of the amount would be prejudicial for the State also. Therefore, in order to balance the equities, we feel that the proper order to be passed is to require the Tribunal to expedite disposal of the appeal filed by the State.
5. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal directing that W. A. No.1863 of 2017 -3- the Thiruvananthapuram Bench of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of T.A.(VAT) No.7 of 2014, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The appellant may produce a copy of this judgment before the Tribunal for information and compliance.
The judgment of the learned single Judge will stand modified to the above extent.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE kns/-
//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE W. A. No.1863 of 2017 -4-