Tata Global Beverages Limited V. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Mattancherry, Cochin and Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam and Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Cochin

WP(C)/30425/2010

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Tata Global Beverages Limited, which sought a refund of agricultural income tax paid for several years due to modified assessments. Previous court directions to process these refunds were not effectively implemented, leading to further legal action. The petitioner also contested a revised assessment for 1994-95, which was under appeal and had a stay petition filed, yet recovery actions were initiated without considering these pending matters. The court's judgment aimed to ensure that the administrative bodies adhere to legal procedures and previous judicial directions in handling tax refund claims and related appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799173 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Kerala Revenue Recovery Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: C K GOVINDAN
• Assessee Lawyers: JOSEPH MARKOSE; V MARKOS; MATHEWS UTHUPPACHAN; BINU MATHEW; TERRY JAMES; B J PRAKASH; TOM THOMAS
• Keywords: Agricultural income-tax; Recovery Steps; Refund; Statutory Appeal; Stay Petition; Modified assessments
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 153A; 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30425 of 2010 (C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED, (FORMERLY TATA TEA LIMITED), BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-FINANCE MR.T.P.VENUGOPALAN. BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN-682 002. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 015. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), COCHIN-682 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.30425 of 2010-C ---------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T Grievance of the petitioner is that huge amounts paid by way of agricultural income tax is due for refund by virtue of modified assessments finalised with respect to the years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1983-84, 1988-89, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93. Since such refund was not effected, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P(C) No.4084 of 2004. In Ext.P1 judgment this Court directed the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the requests made for refund, which are pending as per Exts.P8 and P9 (Exts.P6 and P7 in that writ petition). Inspite of such direction, it is stated that, the first respondent has not taken any effective steps for finalising the matter and for effecting refund. 2. Further grievance of the petitioner is that with respect to the year 1994-95, assessments was completed by the first respondent as per Ext.P1 order which was revised under Ext.P2. Against Ext.P2 the petitioner had preferred statutory appeal before the second respondent as evidenced from Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the stay W.P(C) No.30425 of 2010-C 2 petition filed along with the appeal. But without considering pendency of said appeal recovery steps has now been pursued on issuing Ext.P5 notice, under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that inspite of directions contained in Ext.P7 judgment, the question regarding refund has not so far been finalised for want of adequate materials regarding proof of payment of the amounts. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all such details has now been furnished. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the first respondent is directed to dispose of Ext.P8 and P9 as early as possible, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Considering the fact that Ext.P3 statutory appeal is pending disposal before the second respondent and also considering the fact that the petitioner's claim for refund is yet to be decided, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of on issuing necessary directions to the appellate authority. W.P(C) No.30425 of 2010-C 3 6. The second respondent is directed to consider and pass orders either on Ext.P3 appeal or on Ext.P4 stay petition, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest possible at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the second respondent is disposing the stay petition, contention of the petitioner regarding eligibility for refund due pursuant to Ext.P7 judgment, also shall be taken note of while passing appropriate interim order. 7. Till such time orders are passed by the second respondent as directed above, further recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance. 8. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the respondents. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab "