Wp(C)/22814/2010 Of Thresiamma George v. The Agricultural Income Tax And Commerci

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22814 of 2010(B) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THRESIAMMA GEORGE, KARIMPANAL CHAITHANYA KANJIRAPPILLY. BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL TAX,KANJIRAPPALY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOTTAYAM. 3. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.VINOD CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 22814 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18[th] day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The grievance projected in the Writ Petition is with regard to the nongranting of interest in respect of the belated refund under the KeralaAgricultural Income Tax Act. 2.The cause of action relates to more than two decades ago.During the pendency of the proceedings before the appellate Tribunal,pursuant to the interim order dated 18.02.1991, the petitioner had todeposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Finally, the case projected by the petitionerwas upheld, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowedon 10.01.1995 and the petitioner become eligible to get the refund. 3.Nothing positive transpired for several years, with regard tothe refund. Finally, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C)16608/2007, wherein Ext.P4 judgment was passed by this Court directingto effect payment with interest in the manner specified therein. Pursuant tothe direction contained in Ext.P4, the matter was considered by theconcerned officer who passed revised order on 19.07.2007 giving effect tothe order passed by the Tribunal. Still, the amount was not satisfied byway of interest, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filingCCC 34/2008, which was disposed of on 25.01.2008, giving appropriate WP(C) No. 22814/2010 directions granting time to satisfy the due amount as per Ext.P6 order.Since the same was not given effect, the petitioner was constrained toapproach this Court again by filing CCC 1127/2008, which culminated inExt.P7 order. Pursuant to this, the matter was considered and Ext.P8 orderwas passed on 24.02.2010, whereby it was held that the petitioner waseligible to get Rs.74,316/- towards 'interest' in respect of the belatedpayment. While so, the 2[nd] respondent issued Ext.P9 dated 13.05.2010,holding that he has been instructed by the Commissioner to inform thepetitioner that the petitioner need not be given any interest as per therelevant provisions of the Act. The petitioner is aggrieved of the saiddirection, contending that the same is contrary to the statutory prescriptionand also the judgment passed by this Court. 4.Heard the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) as well whodid not raise any dispute with regard to the sequence of events as narratedby the petitioner. 5.During the course of hearing, it is hereby brought to the noticeof this Court that Section 68(4) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Actclearly stipulates that the party who is entitled to get refund is eligible toobtain 'interest' at the rate of 15% per annum. This being the position, thisCourt finds that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason on the part of the2[nd] respondent and the Commissioner to contend that the petitioner need WP(C) No. 22814/2010 4.Heard the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) as well whodid not raise any dispute with regard to the sequence of events as narratedby the petitioner. 5.During the course of hearing, it is hereby brought to the noticeof this Court that Section 68(4) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Actclearly stipulates that the party who is entitled to get refund is eligible toobtain 'interest' at the rate of 15% per annum. This being the position, thisCourt finds that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason on the part of the2[nd] respondent and the Commissioner to contend that the petitioner need WP(C) No. 22814/2010 not be given any interest at all. That apart, pursuant to the variousjudgments and orders, the matter attained finality by virtue of Ext.P8passed by the 1[st] respondent, whereby it has been clearly held that thepetitioner is entitled to get Rs.74,316/- towards interest in respect of thebelated payment and this order stands in tact. The communication issuedby the 2[nd] respondent as per Ext.P9 cannot water down the scope of thesaid order under any circumstance, more so, when the statutoryprescription is quite unambiguous. In the above circumstances, the respondents are directed to releasethe amount covered by Ext.P8 to the petitioner forthwith, within one monthfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. dnc P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENONJUDGE