9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 207 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRemitted entry tax to the tune of Rs.50,000/- as per the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 - Later on petitioner was assessed the total tax liability as Rs.1,95,600 - Held that - As per the decision reported in Thressiamma L. Chirayil V. State of Kerala (2007 (1) KLT 303), the appeal was allowed and Ext.P4 order was passed by the appellate authority on 20.6.2008, whereby the first respondent was directed to refund the amount remitted by the petitioner/appellant as per the interim order passed by this Court. There is no case for the respondents, that Ext.P4 order has been challenged by filing any further appeal or such other proceeding by the Department/Revenue. This being the position, so long as the issue between the petitioner and the respondents is concerned, it has become final, as per Ext.P4 - there will be a direction to the first respondent to effect the refund as ordered by the appellate authority vide Ext.P4, on executing a bond by the petitioner agreeing to have it repaid, if the decision in the matter pending before the Apex Court is answered in favour of the Revenue - Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Issues:
1. Refund of entry tax remitted by the petitioner. 2. Validity of the order passed by the appellate authority. 3. Compliance with the directions of the appellate authority. 4. Challenge to the appellate authority's decision in the Supreme Court. 5. Effectiveness of the directions for refund. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a medical institution, sought a refund of entry tax remitted for an 'Ultra sound scanner' brought from outside the State. The petitioner had remitted Rs.50,000 as entry tax under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994. The first respondent assessed the total tax liability at Rs.1,95,600, leading to a statutory appeal by the petitioner. The appellate authority, in Ext.P4 order, directed the first respondent to refund the amount remitted by the petitioner based on an interim order. Despite this direction, the refund was not effected, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition seeking enforcement of the appellate authority's decision. 2. The petitioner's grievance centered around the inaction of the first respondent in effecting the refund as per the appellate authority's order. The petitioner had complied with the interim order by paying Rs.50,000. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the charging provision itself based on a previous decision by the court. The respondents did not file a counter affidavit, and the Government Pleader acknowledged the appellate authority's direction for the refund. The Government Pleader mentioned a pending challenge in the Supreme Court but confirmed that the matter between the petitioner and respondents had become final based on Ext.P4 order. 3. Given the finality of the issue between the petitioner and respondents, the court directed the first respondent to effect the refund as per Ext.P4 order. The court required the petitioner to execute a bond agreeing to repay the refund if the Supreme Court's decision favored the Revenue. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, affirming the appellate authority's decision and ordering the refund contingent on the Supreme Court's ruling in the pending matter.
|
