Kalyan Jewellers INDIA LTD. vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of State Tax - Kerala High Court, 14 January 2020

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 24TH POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.32416 OF 2019(B) PETITIONER: KALYAN JEWELLERS INDIA LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS KALYAN JEWELLERS SALEM, (P), LTD., SITARAM MILL ROD, THRISSUR 680 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, T.K. SEETHARAM. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM SMT.S.K.DEVI RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX SPECIAL CIRCLE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT (KERALA), STATE TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR 680 004. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, (KERALA) STATE TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR 680 004. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.32416/2019 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.32416 of 2019 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2020

JUDGMENT The main prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:- “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the 1st respondent to refund the amounts due to the petitioner as per Ext.P3 order with interest as provided u/s.89(3) of the KVAT Act.

Heard Smt. S.K. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Thushara James, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

It is averred that the petitioner is a Company dealing with Jewellery and was an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act on the files of the 1st respondent Asst. Commissioner of State Tax, Thrissur and further that the 1st respondent has completed the assessment for the assessment year 2009-2010 u/s.25(1) as per Ext.P1, which was modified as per Ext.P2 in appeal. That the petitioner had explained the allegations raised against him. But, the 1st respondent had imposed him the penalty as proposed as per Exts.P1 and P2. That the 1st respondent has passed Ext.P3 modified order as provided under Section 55(7). But the excess amount due to the petitioner is not yet refunded. The petitioner has now submitted Ext.P4 petition dated 11.12.2018 before the 1st respondent seeking refund of the differential excess amount and that the grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though Ext.P4 request for refund has been made as early as on 11.12.2018, the 1st respondent has not taken any effective action on the same, which resulted that the payment due to the petitioner is getting indefinitely delayed.

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case as revealed from the pleadings and materials on record and after hearing both sides, it is ordered that the 1st respondent will take up the plea made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 petition dated 11.12.2018 and, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through his authorised representative/counsel, if any, will take a considered decision thereon, without much delay, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy this judgment. Depending upon the outcome of the decision rendered by the 1st respondent on the matter in Ext.P4, further follow up action may be also duly taken and completed by the officials concerned including the 1st respondent without much delay, at any rate, within six weeks thereafter. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE. acd APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ORDER NO. 32010155291/2009-10 DATED 17.6.2013. EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL ORDER NO. KVATA 2543/2013 DATED 14.5.2015. EXHIBIT P3OF THE ORDER NO. 32010155291/2009-10 (MODIFIED) DATED 30.10.2018. EXHIBIT P4OF THE REQUEST DATED 11.12.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.