The prayers in the writ petition are in the following terms:
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or writ or direction directing the 1st respondent to adjust the amount of Rs.62,525/- with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order of the appellate authority to the demand made against the petitioner in Ext.P11 revenue recovery notice and allow to pay only the balance amount after adjustment forthwith.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or writ or direction directing the respondents to pay 10% interest to the amount due to the petitioner in terms of Section 89(4) of the Act.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order declaring that the petitioner is not entitled to pay interest for the amount of Rs.62,525/- out of the principle amount of Rs.97,421/- demanded in Ext.P10.
iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or writ or direction directing the respondents to consider Ext.P4 representation and keep in abeyance all further proceedings in pursuant to Ext.P11, till a decision taken by the 1st respondent.”
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, paragraphs 3 to 5 of which read as follows:
W.P.C. No. 15975 of 2014 -2-
“3. It is humbly submitted that a sum or Rs.65,525/- (ie. Rs.10,125) and Rs.52,400/-) is refundable to the dealer M/s Raj Trade Links. The petitioner has put in a letter for refunding the above stated amount. It is submitted that the refund is delayed because of want of remittance details ie. Chalan No. & date and name of treasury. These details must come from Intelligence Officer squad No.IV, Palakkad and Intelligence Officer, Squad No.II, Mattanchery. It is because of want of these details that the refund is delayed. Above fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner vide this Office letter dated 04.06.2013 produced in WP(C) as Exhibit P7.
4. It is submitted that an audit was conducted on the business place of M/s. Raj Trade Links and audit assessment was done, aggrieved by the assessment order the petitioner had moved before the Assistant Commissioner (Appeal), Commercial Taxes, Trissur. The Assistant Commissioner (Appeal), Commercial Taxes, Thrissur and the appellate authority had modified the original assessment order.
5. It is submitted that on the basis of the order of the appellate authority original assessment for the year 2011-12 was modified with tax liability of Rs.1,04,146/- (ie Rs.97,421/- towards tax and Rs.6,725 towards interest). Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated by third respondent, but the amount could not be recouped and the RRC was returned by 3rd respondent. Now RRC is issued to the District Collector for further proceedings.”
3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 24.06.2014 further coercive proceedings were W.P.C. No. 15975 of 2014 -3-
intercepted on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of ₹ 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand) within two weeks; which is stated as complied with. During the course of hearing, the learned Government Pleader submits that, if the petitioner produces details of remittance and such other documents in support of the claim, the matter can be considered and refund/set off against adjustment could be done without delay.
4. In the said circumstance, the petitioner is set at liberty to produce all the relevant documents before the 1st respondent, upon which the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed so as to finalize Ext.P14. The proceedings as above shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for further steps.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-