K. MATHEW, PROPRIETOR, DECCAN CABLE INDUSTRIES, THRIPPILAZHIKOM P.O. KUZHIMATHICAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT Vs. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA KOLLAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the Proprietor of a small scale industrial unit by name Deccan Cable Industries, which was a dealer on the rolls of the respondent. Ext. P1 is the proceedings issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kollam dated 20/9/07, which recognises the eligibility of the petitioner for an exemption from sales tax. Accordingly, it has been ordered that the petitioner is eligible for sales tax exemption upto Rs. 1,60,909/ - being 100% of the investment for a period of seven years from 12/10/91 or till the amount sanctioned is exhausted, whichever comes earlier. This order makes reference to the various litigations and that apparently is the reason for the belated issuance of the order on 20/9/2007 with retrospective effect from 12/10/91. Before issuance of this order, petitioner was made to pay tax under the KGST Act for the years 1991 -92 and 1992 -93. It also appears that in a dispute pertaining to the tax liability for the years 1996 -97 and 1997 -98, pursuant to the directions of this Court in Ext. P2 judgment in OP No. 1971/01, petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.50,000/ - as condition for enjoying the stay order. On the issuance of Ext. P1 order exempting the petitioner from liability for payment of tax for seven years w.e.f. 12/10/91, petitioner claimed refund of the tax paid during the seven years period. That claim of the petitioner was considered and pursuant to the directions of this Court in WP(C) No. 4223/10, Ext. P3 order dated 13/4/2010 was issued by the respondent. Virtually the entire claim has been rejected. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , by Ext. P1 order issued on 20/9/2007, the entitlement of the petitioner for benefit of sales tax exemption for a period of seven years from 12/10/91 or till the sanctioned amount of Rs. 1,60,909/ - is exhausted, whichever is earlier, has been accepted by the General Manager, District Industries Centre. This order of the General Manager, District Industries Centre is binding on the respondent also. Once such an order has been issued, the said order has to be given effect to. Therefore, if within the period during which the petitioner is eligible for exemption, any payment has been made by the petitioner, such realisation of tax from the petitioner is a collection of tax without authority of law. Therefore, such unauthorisedly collected amount is liable to be refunded to the petitioner. Any other view if taken will render Ext. P1 otiose and such a view cannot be adopted. Therefore, the view taken in Ext. P3 that there is no specific order by the appellate authorities requiring refund of the amounts collected from the petitioner is absolutely illegal and cannot be upheld. In such circumstances, I am inclined to think that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. This view I have taken is fortified by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Corporation Bank v. Saraswati Abharansala and another { : (2009) 19 VST 84}.