IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33315 of 2007(N)
1. PARCO DIOGNOSTIC &
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
3. THE SALES TAX OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAMADAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :03/12/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P (C) No. 33315 OF 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 3rd day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the non-refunding of
the entry tax already satisfied by the petitioner and also as to the non-
release the ‘bank guarantee’ furnished, pursuant to the direction given by
this Court earlier.
2. The petitioner imported two ‘MRI scanning machines’ and a
‘Colour dopler’ from abroad, which were detained, demanding entry tax to
be satisfied by the petitioner. This made the petitioner to approach this
Court by filing three different writ petitions, because of the different cause
of action arose at different points of time. The above Writ Petitions, viz. W.
P. (C) No.s 10708/2004, 5171/ 2005 and 5918/2005, were admitted by this
Court and as per Ex. P1 to P3 interim orders, the petitioner was directed to
satisfy 25 % of the entry tax demanded and to furnish ‘bank guarantee’ for
the balance amount. Later, pursuant to the law declared by the division
bench of this Court in Thressiamma L Chirayil Vs. State of Kerala (ILR
2007 (1) Ker. 61), the writ petitions filed by the petitioner were allowed as
per Exs. P4 to P6 judgments and the petitioner was permitted to move the
W.P. (C) No. 33315 of 2007
2
competent authority for getting ‘refund’ of the amounts already deposited
and to have the bank guarantees released. Based on the above verdicts,
the petitioner filed Exts. P7 to P9 petitions before the 3rd respondent as
early as on 16.04.2007. But, since the 3rd respondent has chosen to keep
the same in the cold storage, the petitioner is stated as constrained to
approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in spite of the
direction given by this Court vide Ext. P4 to P6 judgments, enabling the
petitioner to file an application for the refund as well as for releasing sthe
bank guarantee, Exts. P7 to P9 applications preferred are not being acted
upon by the third respondent stating that no time limit has been fixed by
this Court and further that the State/Revenue has already approached the
Apex Court by filing an SLP against the verdict passed by the Division
Bench and that the same is pending.
4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the matters
pertaining to entry tax have been tagged on together, to be heard, by the
Apex Court.
5. In the above circumstance, the third respondent is directed to
consider and pass final orders on Exts. P7 to P9 petitions for refund, after
ascertaining whether any SLP has been preferred in respect of Ext. P4 to
P6 judgments and whether any interim order has been granted by the Apex
W.P. (C) No. 33315 of 2007
3
Court therein. The final orders as above shall be passed, as expeditiously
as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd