Eventhough challenge was raised against Ext.P1 and P1(a) invoices, as well as against Exts.P7 and P8 to a certain extent, it is now brought to notice of this court through documents produced along with I.A. No.4840/2014 that the petitioner was allowed to settle payment of the arrears under the 'One Time Settlement Scheme' as per Exts.P10 and P11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire arrears was paid as per Exts.P10 and P11 on 27.03.2014. As such the impugned demand does not survives at present. But the petitioner contended that in Ext.P7 proceedings issued by the State Government it was found that the petitioner is entitled to get refund of an amount of `4,00,000/-. It is complained that, despite such findings contained in Ext.P7 the Board has repeated the demands without giving credit to the amount found as due for refund. Hence it is contended that the 2nd respondent Board is liable to make refund of the amount ordered by the Government. W.P.(C). No. 12698 of 2005 -2-
2. Heard; counsel for the petitioner and Senior standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Board. Since challenge against the impugned demand does not survive in view of payment effected in accordance with the 'One Time Settlement Scheme' the remaining issue is only with respect to payment of amount found liable for refund in Ext.P7 proceedings. It is for respondents 2 and 3 to consider the findings contained in Ext.P7 and to take appropriate consequential steps. Interest of justice will be achieved by directing respondents 2 and 3 to take appropriate steps without any further delay.
3. Therefore, while dismissing this writ petition finding that the challenges has become infructuous, direction is issued to respondents 2 and 3 to take appropriate steps on the basis of Ext.P7 proceedings without any further delay, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Pn