IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 618 of 2009()
1. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT-I)
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SRIKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :03/07/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
-------------------------------
R.P.No.618 of 2009 in W.A.No.1201 of 2009
-------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd July, 2009
O R D E R
Raman, J.
Review petitioner who is the appellant in
W.A.No.1201 of 2009 seeks to review the judgment dated
16.6.2009. The writ petition itself is against an interim order
passed by the appellate authority under the CST, requiring the
appellant to remit 40% of the amount due as a condition to grant
stay. However, the learned Single Judge, while exercising the
discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had
reduced the amount to 25%. We found no reason to interfere
with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The
contention raised in the review petition is that being a Public
Sector Undertaking, in order to obtain a stay, a condition to pay
any portion of the amount cannot be insisted. Reliance is placed
on the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Petroleum
RP.No.618 of 2009
2
Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and others
(2008 (17) VST 162 (SC).
2. We have perused the judgment of the Apex
Court. The Apex Court no doubt considered whether in the
factual situation arisen in that case, a condition to remit any
amount should be imposed. It was held that the assessee was a
Public Sector Company selling Kerosene oil via Public Distribution
System route and the demand was for Rs.1.34 crores.
Therefore, requiring the appellant therein to insist for payment of
any portion of the amount, might affect the public distribution
system. No where it is said that a public sector undertaking is
entitled for a blanket stay, as of right. So, every case has to
be considered on its facts.
3. Further, in this case, what is disputed is the
amount of sales tax due not in connection with any Public
Distribution System and due to defective ‘C’ forms. Hence, we
find that the above decision has no application in this case.
Further, this is not a point urged either in the appeal or before
RP.No.618 of 2009
3
the learned Single Judge. As the review petition was filed urging
a ground bringing to the notice of this Court a decision of the
Supreme Court, we though it appropriate to consider the matter.
However, we find no merit in the review petition.
Accordingly, it is dismissed. But, we extend the time by two
weeks from today for compliance of the condition imposed by
the learned Single Judge.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE.
nj.