IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942
RP.No.525 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 10818/2009
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10818/2009(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COMMERCIAL TAXES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WPC:
MRF LIMITED
POST BOX NO.2, VADAVATHOOR, KOTTAYAM - 696 010.
BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
BY ADV. SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
BY ADV. SRI.RAJA KANNAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No.525 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 10818/2009
2
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking a review of the judgment of this Court dated 01.10.2017, as per which, the writ petition was disposed of affirming the ratio laid down in STRV.No.213/2006 and connected cases.
2. Sri.C.Unnikrishnan, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the review petitioners, submitted that STRV.No.213/2006, in fact, has no application to the facts of this case and that in any event of the matter, the writ petition could not have been disposed of in the manner as has been done, in view of the fact that the petitioners themselves have preferred Tax Appeal Nos.16/2010 and 17/2010 before the Appellate Tribunal, Kottayam. Sri.C.Unnikrishnan therefore, prayed that the judgment in question be reviewed and the writ petitioner be directed to pursue their remedies before the Appellate Tribunal, Kottayam.
3. In response, Sri.Kurian Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, affirmed that Tax Appeal Nos.16/2010 and 17/2010 are pending before the Appellate Tribunal, Kottayam, however, contesting the submissions of RP.No.525 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 10818/2009 3 Sri.Unnikrishnan that the ratio in STRV.No.213/2006 is not applicable to the facts of this case. He, however, submitted that since the aforementioned statutory appeals preferred by his client are pending before the Appellate Tribunal, he does not stand in the way of this Court vacating the judgment and allowing the said Tribunal to dispose of the appeals in terms of law at the earliest point of time. He then prayed that since, through the interim order of this Court dated 01.06.2009 in the writ petition, his client has paid certain amounts, the same be directed to be treated as a deposit, which will adhere to the decision to be taken by the Appellate Tribunal in the afore referred Tax Appeals.
Taking note of the afore submissions and since the parties are ad idem that Tax Appeal Nos.16/2010 and 17/2010 are pending before the Appellate Tribunal, Kottayam, I deem it appropriate to allow this review petition and to vacate the judgment, so as to pave way for consideration of the said appeals by the Appellate Tribunal appropriately.
Resultantly, this review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 04.10.2017 is recalled; consequently ordering the writ petition directing the Appellate Tribunal, Kottayam to take up Tax RP.No.525 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 10818/2009 4 Appeal Nos.16/2010 and 17/2010 and dispose of the same as per law, after affording necessary opportunity to both sides, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
I am fixing the time as above, taking note of the fact that the appeals have been pending before the Tribunal for the last more than ten years without final orders .
It is needless to say that the amounts deposited by the petitioner in terms of the interim order of this Court dated 01.06.2009 will be construed as a deposit, which will finally adhere by the decision to be taken by the Appellate Tribunal, Kottayam, in terms of this judgment.
This review petition is thus ordered.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
rp JUDGE