IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32235 of 2008(K)
1. MULAMOOTTIL TRADING COMPANY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TAHSILDAR (R.R.), PATHANAMTHITTA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :03/11/2008
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 32235 OF 2008 K
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is an order
passed granting stay on condition that the petitioner deposits
50% of the balance tax.
2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for petitioner
relies on the judgment of this court in Supreme Electrical
Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer [2008 (3)
KLT 805] and contends that Ext.P4 is unreasonable. The
reason stated in Ext.P4 is as follows:
” As per proviso to section 11(6) of
KVAT Act excess input tax credit remains
unadjusted during the last return period of
that year, the excess input tax credit so
remaining unadjusted, shall be refunded to
the dealer as if it were a refund accrued
under section 13. Hence the excess input tax
as on 31.3.2006 adjusted for the output tax
WPC.32235/08
: 2 :for 2006-07 in incorrect and illegal.
Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case a prima facie case for conditional
stay established in this case.”
In such circumstances, I do not think there is much merit
in the contention of the petitioner. Petitioner is granted two
weeks time to comply with the condition of Ext.P4. Writ
petition is dismissed subject to granting of time.
Sd/-
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE