Allowed

M/S.Navin Oil Industries v. the Assistant Commissioner(Assessment)

Kerala HC20 Dec 2010WP(C)/34285/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner (Special Circle III), Ernakulam, to refund Rs. 7,00,537 along with statutory interest to the petitioner within two months, in compliance with a prior revisional order.

What did the court decide?

Directing the first respondent to effect refund of Rs. 7,00,537 along with statutory interest within two months.

M/S.Navin Oil Industries Vs the Assistant… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34285 of 2010(I)

¶5

--------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

-------------------

¶8

M/S.NAVIN OIL INDUSTRIES, ILLIKKATTU HOUSE, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-682026,REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER N.SUGATHAN

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

----------------------

¶12

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT) SPECIAL CIRCLE III,COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM PIN-682015

¶13

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM PIN-682015

¶14

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J

¶18

WP(C) NO. 34285 OF 2010

¶19

Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2010

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner is seeking specific directions to the first respondent to effect refund of a sum of Rs.7,00,537/-, along with interest due thereon, on the basis of Ext.P10 order. It is evident from Ext.P10 that, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against Ext.P9 order of refund was allowed and it was held that the petitioner is eligible to get refund to the extent as stated above. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent is not giving effect to the revisional order, inspite of approaches made in this regard, and inspite of lapse of several months.

¶22

Heard, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents. In view of the facts prevailing as stated above, I am of the view that the Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the first respondent to take effective steps for refund the amounts as ordered in

¶23

¶24

WP(C) No. 34285/2010

¶25

Ext.P10, along with statutory interest if any due, if

¶26

operation of the said order has not been stayed by any authority.

¶27

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to effect refund of the amounts due under Ext.P10, along with statutory interest if any payable, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶28

C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶29

dnc

M/S.Navin Oil Industries v. the Assistant Commissioner(Assessment)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Navin Oil Industries v. the Assistant Commissioner(Assessment)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.J & J Timbers,Chalakkudy Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Jose K.Thomas Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Ramesh C.P. Vs Rto,Malappuram

Mary Joseph Vs the District Collector

V.G.Unnikrishnan Vs the Manager, State Bank of India & Anr.

Harijan Vanitha Kaitharal Naithu Vs Industrial Tribunal