State Of Kerala vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 416 Ker

                      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

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

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