IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 1058 of 2010()
1. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND
... Petitioner
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,OFFICE OF THE
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
Vs
1. THRESIAMMA GEORGE,KARIMPANAL,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :01/12/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P. No. 1058 of 2010
IN
W.P.(C)No. 22814 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010
O R D E R
This Review Petition has been filed at the instance of
the Revenue stating that there occurred an error apparent on the
face of record, when W.P.(C) No.22814 of 2010 was disposed of
on 18.08.2010, directing to release the amount covered by
Ext.P1 by way of interest as ordered by the concerned
respondent.
2. Review Petitioners contend that reference made to
Section 68(4) of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act which
provides for granting of interest at the rate of 15% per annum is
not applicable to the case in hand. The learned Special
Government Pleader(Taxes) appearing for the review petitioners
submits that there is no provision in the Old Act which governs
the field in question and as such, the verdict passed by this
Court, directing payment of interest, is liable to be reviewed.
3. On going through the materials on record, it is
R.P. No. 1058 of 2010
IN W.P.(C)No. 22814 of 2010
-:2:-
seen that, the impugned judgment was passed not placing
reliance on Section 68(4) of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax
Act or as to the rate of interest payable accordingly; though a
reference was made to the said provision in paragraph 5 of the
judgment.
4. The entire sequence of events was taken note of by
this Court with regard to the claim for interest. As a matter of
fact, the writ petitioner was compelled to effect the deposit as
per the interim order passed by the Tribunal, as a condition for
availing the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the
revision petition. Ultimately, the merit of the case was
considered and the review was allowed in favour of the assessee,
when the assessee became entitled to have the refund. No
positive action was taken by the respondents to effect the refund,
who, on the other hand, were enjoying the said amount
generating interest. Since there was no other alternative, the
assessee approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.16608 of
2007, which culminated in Ext.P4 judgment dated 29.06.2007,
whereby the excess amount was directed to be repaid with
R.P. No. 1058 of 2010
IN W.P.(C)No. 22814 of 2010
-:3:-
“eligible interest”.
5. The above judgment was not complied with, which
made the assessee to approach this Court by filing Contempt
Case, leading to Ext.P6 order dated 25.01.2008, wherein the only
contention put forth from the part of the respondent/contemnor
was to have some more time to satisfy the liability; which was
granted and the Contempt Case was closed. The position
remained to be the same, which made the assessee to file
another Contempt Case (No.1127 of 2008) which led to Ext.P7
order dated 14.08.08 holding that ‘Interest’ was a matter for
adjudication and accordingly, the issue was directed to be
pursued before the concerned authority.
6. Pursuant to Ext.P7 order, the issue was considered
by the concerned authority who passed Ext.P8 order dated
24.02.2010 finding that a sum of `74,316/- was liable to be paid
as ‘interest’; which was accordingly ordered to be paid to the
assessee. It was thereafter that Ext.P9 communication was
issued from the office of the Deputy Commissioner stating that
the amount mentioned in Ext.P8 was not liable to be paid.
R.P. No. 1058 of 2010
IN W.P.(C)No. 22814 of 2010
-:4:-
7. Challenging Ext.P9, the assessee approached this
Court through the above Writ Petition and it was after considering
all the facts and circumstances as above, that the matter was
finalized as per the impugned judgment; more so when Ext.P8
order passed after adjudication of the issue had attained finality;
which could not have been watered down through Ext.P9
communication. This being the position, there is no ‘error
apparent on the face of the records’ to invoke the power of
review. As such, interference is declined and the Review Petition
is dismissed as devoid of any merit.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE
ttb