Disposed

Faras Info-Tech Private Limited v. the Asst. Commissioner (Assessment)

Kerala HC4 Jun 2015WP(C)/853/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking refund of excess tax payments under KGST, CST, and KVAT Acts, holding that while the petitioners must produce proof of excess payment to trigger a refund, the court cannot interfere with the levy of penal interest on final orders as they have become final. The respondent is directed to pass refund orders within two months after verifying admissible cla

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to produce proof of excess payment; Respondent directed to pass refund orders within two months; Petitioner to pay penal interest calculable as of 2008 to be adjusted against refun

Faras Info-Tech Private Limited Vs the Asst… — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/14TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 853 of 2008 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

FARAS INFO-TECHS PRIVATE LIMITED, 39/2046, OPP. DWARAKA HOTEL, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AVINASH V.SARAF.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL CIRCLE-II, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

WP(C).No. 853 of 2008 (B)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXT. P1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFI 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE	ED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE YEAR 1992-93 DATED 5.3.1999.
EXT. P2 :	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGM DATED 21.12.1998.	ENT IN O.P.NO.4497 OF 1994
EXT. P3 :	TRUE COPY OF THE REVISE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER S DATED 12.4.2002.	D ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE .43 FOR THE YEAR 1997-98
EXT. P4 :	TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFI KGST ACT DATED 30.3.05 F	ED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER OR THE YEAR 1999-2000.
EXT. P5 :	-DO- -DO-	UNDER CST ACT
EXT. P6 :	-DO- -DO- THE YEAR 2000-01.	UNDER KGST ACT DATED 10.1.05 FOR
EXT. P7 :	-DO- -DO-	UNDER CST ACT.
EXT. P8 :	TRUE COPY OF THE ASSES 2001-02 UNDER KGST ACT D	SMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE YEAR ATED 31.7.04.
EXT. P9 :	-DO- -DO-	UNDER CST ACT.
EXT.P10 :	-DO- -DO- F DATED 29.10.04.	OR THE YEAR 2002-03 UNDER KGST ACT
EXT.P11:	-DO- -DO-	UNDER CST ACT.
EXT. P12 :	TRUE COPY OF THE COVRI PER EXT. P8 DATED 16.8.04.	NG LETTER FOR PAYMENT OF DEMAND AS
EXT.P13:	APPLICATION MADE BY THE DATED 27.4.2002.	PETITIONERS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P14:	-DO- -DO-	DATED 30.3.07.
EXT.P15:	-DO- -DO-
EXT.P16:	-DO- -DO-
EXT.P17:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DIRECTING TO APPEAR FOR	ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT A PERSONAL HEARING DATED 9.4.07.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶24

W.P.(C) No.853 of 2008

¶25

Dated this the 4^th day of June, 2015

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act' for short) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act' for short) and also under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('KGST Act' for short). The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers :

¶28

(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1^st respondent to refund the excess amounts payable to the petitioners as per Ext.P-1, P-3 to P7 assessment orders and P-2 judgment, together with interest as provided under law, after setting off the debts of the petitioners as per Ext.P8 & P- 10 forthwith;

¶29

(b) declare that no penal interest is leviable on the balance of demand of tax as per Ext.P-8 & P-10 assessment orders, when substantial amounts were there with the department to reimburse to the petitioners;

¶30

(c) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P-13 to P-16 immediately;

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is entitled for refund of excess payment of tax under KGST and CST Acts amounting to a sum of ₹20,52,176/- as evidenced by Exts.P1, P3 to P7 assessment orders and Ext.P2

¶32

W.P.(C) No.853 of 2008

¶33

¶34

judgment. It is also submitted that, the amount is pending with the 1^st respondent for long.

¶35

The learned Government Pleader in answer to the above relief submits that, if the petitioner produces proof of excess payment, necessarily refund order will be granted in the light of Exts.P1 to P7.

¶36

In regard to penal interest levied on Exts.P8 to P11 final assessment orders, I am of the view that, since the same has became final, this Court cannot interfere with levy of penal interest in those assessment orders.

¶37

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :

¶38

The petitioner shall produce necessary evidence before the 1^st respondent for refund. Thereupon, after adverting to Exts.P1 to P7, necessary orders shall be passed for refund within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

The petitioner shall pay the amount, quantified as penal interest based on Exts.P8 to P11 as on 2008. This may be adjusted from the amount due to the petitioner by way of refund.

¶40

If the petitioner is entitled for refund as on

¶41

W.P.(C) No.853 of 2008

¶42

¶43

2008, after adjusting the liability of the petitioner as per Exts.P8 to P11 as on in the year 2008, the remaining amount alone need be refunded. The rights and liabilities of the petitioner has to be worked out as in the year 2008. If the petitioner is entitled for any refund amount after adjusting the liability of the petitioner as per Exts.P8 to P11, the same shall be released to the petitioner within a further period of three months with statutory interest.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

¶46

Faras Info-Tech Private Limited v. the Asst. Commissioner (Assessment)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faras Info-Tech Private Limited v. the Asst. Commissioner (Assessment)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arya Viswanath Vs Narayanankutty

P.N. Sasidharan Vs T. Bhaskaran, I.A.S.

Bank of Maharashtra Vs Joy Daniel

Sajeena Vs Smt. Nijamol

S.A Shaik Muhammed Shabeer Vs K.K Ibrahimkutty

Vijayashoma.v. Vs State of Kerala