Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56874
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
M/S. M G INDUSTRIES – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 37541 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: PRABHATH MATHAI, SRI.P.S.SOMAN, SMT.T.RADHAMONY, SMT.S.VEENA
For the Respondents: SMT.RESHMITHA R CHANDRAN
Court confirmed the statutory obligation to provide refunds as per previous appellate orders, mandating timely compliance.
Headnote:This judgment addresses the statutory obligation of the respondents to grant a refund of Rs.6,82,511/- along with interest owed to the petitioner, M/S. M G INDUSTRIES, as determined by the appellate orders. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus due to the non-issuance of the refund despite the orders affirming entitlement. The court noted the delay in payment beyond the statutory obligation and directed the respondents to process the payment within four months from receiving this judgment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner entitled to refund as per appellate orders. (Para 1) |
| 2. court emphasizes statutory obligation to process refund promptly. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by the failure on the part of the respondents, in granting refund of an amount of Rs.6,82,511/- along with interest, in respect of the appellate orders passed by the First Appellate Authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal, in respect of various financial years. As against Exts.P1, P2 and P3 series assessment orders and penalty orders, the petitioner filed appeals, which culminated in Exts.P4 series orders, wherein, the appeals were allowed and thus, the entitlement of the petitioner to get the refund was established. In the light of the above, Exts.P5 series letters were submitted by the petitioner seeking refund, and as there was no response, Exts.P6 series reminder letters were issued. Since there was no response from the part of the respondents in making the refund, this writ petition is submitted seeking the following reliefs:
“i. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the 1st, and 2nd Respondents to grant refund of a sum of Rs. 6,82,511-00 remitted in order to fulfill the stay condition fixed by the 1st appellate authority, the security deposit furnished by the Petitioner in order to release the goods detained at the check posts and later converted as penalty and appropriated towards the demand in Exhibits-P3 & P3(a) penalty orders and the amount recovered from the bank account of the Managing Partner as part of revenue recovery proceedings, with interest without any further delay and within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon’able Court;
ii. To dispense the filing of translation of the vernacular document.
AND iii. Grant such other or further reliefs, as this Hon’able Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of this proceeding to the petitioner.”
2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that, since the right of the petitioner is already determined, as per Exts.P4 series orders passed in appeals, it is the statutory obligation of the respondents to ensure that, the refund of the amount eligible to the petitioner is affected. Exts.P4 series appellate orders were passed on various dates and the latest one is on 06.05.2022. Thus, despite the fact that, several years have elapsed, the said payment has not been affected.
