Tom Thomas v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR) and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/26TH SRAVANA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 22203 of 2016 (A)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **-------------** **TOM THOMAS** **AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. O.C.THOMAS, OLASSAYIL HOUSE, M.K.RAGHAVAN ROAD, KOOVAPPADAM, KOCHI-682 002.** **BY ADVS.SRI.JINU JOSEPH SRI.P.SANJAY** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** ## **1. DEPUTY THASILDAR (RR)** **OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),KOCHI-01.** ## **2. VILLAGE OFFICER** **RAMESHWARAM, KOCHI-02.** ## **3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER** **OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IIND CIRCLE, MATTANCHERY, KOCHI.** ## **4. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE** **OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, GROUND FLOOR, NEW BUILDING, BAKERY JET ROAD, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.** **R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY K.T.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** ## **WP(C).No. 22203 of 2016 (A)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-----------------------** **P1: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20.5.2016 U/S.7 OF RR ACT.** **P2: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20.5.2016 U/S.7 OF RR ACT.** **P3: COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT.** **P4: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION UNDER KGST. P5: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION UNDER CST. P6: ASSESSMENT ORDER OF AY 1986-87.** **P7: ASSESSMENT ORDER OF AY 1989-90.** **P8: ASSESSMENT ORDER OF AY 1991-92.** - **P9: COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **P10: COPY OF THE PETITION SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC 26027/2008.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **bp** ## **A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.** **-------------------------------------** W.P.(C) No. 22203 of 2016 -------------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of August, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** In the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P2 revenue recovery notices issued under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. In Ext.P1, the demand had been made for an amount of Rs.83,16,428/- with interest and other charges. The demand is made for sales tax dues. The period of demand is stated to be 1.4.1986. According to the petitioner, he had started business only after 1.4.1986 and therefore, there was no sales tax due as on 1.4.1986. Reference is made to Exts.P3 and P4 to indicate that the petitioner started business only after 27.09.1986. It is further contended that the petitioner had preferred appeal against the assessment orders in respect of assessment years 1986-87, 1989-90 and 1991-92, which is pending before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, there is no reason to demand W.P.(C) No. 22203 of 2016 -2- any amount as claimed. 2. A statement has been filed by the respondent _inter alia_ stating that in respect of the amount demanded as per the revenue recovery notice, it is with reference to the assessment years 86-87, 87-88, 88-89, 89-90 and 92-93. The total amount would come to Rs.83,16,428/-. It is submitted that insofar as there is no stay by the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner is liable to pay the said amount. 3. A reply has been filed _inter alia_ contending that the petitioner is not served with the assessment orders for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 and hence, the demand is bad in law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner places the reliance upon the judgment of this Court in **Abdulla Kunhi v.** ## **Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation [2001 (1) KLT** **631]** , wherein, a learned Single Judge of this Court had occasion to consider the scope and effect of notice under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It is observed W.P.(C) No. 22203 of 2016 -3- that the notice under Section 7 has to be complied strictly and all particulars have to be mentioned in the notice itself. The contention urged is that there is no liability on the petitioner as on 1.4.1986 and therefore, the petitioner has no obligation to pay any amount. Learned counsel also places the reliance on the judgment in **K.T. Thomas v. Tahsildar, Kozhikode [1983 KLT 710]** wherein, another learned Single Judge of this Court had taken a similar view. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that there is no mistake in Ext.P1. It is argued that even according to the petitioner, he started business during the assessment year 1986-87 and assessment orders had been passed during the said period 1986-87 as well, which is evident from Ext.P6. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner is fully aware of the assessment orders passed against him as the assessment orders relates to the different set of periods from 1986-87, 1989-90 and 1992-93, for which revenue recovery proceedings had been initiated. It is further W.P.(C) No. 22203 of 2016 -4- submitted that as far as the other assessment years are concerned, separate revenue recovery proceedings have already been initiated against the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader also placed on record the files in this regard and it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the assessment orders for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 had been served on Smt.Rani Thomas, wife of Tom Thomas on 17.12.2008. It is also submitted that the assessment orders were served on the very same person, as far as the other assessment years are concerned, which file is also made available before this Court. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, I am of the view that there is no error in the revenue authorities in issuing notice under Section 7 of the Act. Petitioner is fully aware of the assessment orders passed against him in respect of certain assessment years. He had even filed appeals against a few assessment orders. When a demand has been made for the aforesaid amount as sales tax dues, it is well W.P.(C) No. 22203 of 2016 -5- within the knowledge of the petitioner as to how the liability had occurred. The liability starts from 1.4.1986, which is the assessment year 1986-87. Petitioner had also produced Ext.P6 assessment order against which, according to the petitioner, an appeal is pending. Therefore, I do not find any error on the part of the revenue authorities in demanding the amount from assessment year 1.4.1986. It would have been appropriate for mentioning all the assessment years. But still when the petitioner cannot say that he was unaware of the sales tax dues, there is no illegality or much less irregularity, Ext.P1 notice which warrants interference by this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that as far as assessment years 86-87 and 89-90 are concerned, during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.26739 of 2016 and by an order dated 11.8.2016, this Court had directed the Tribunal to consider the stay petition and pass a final order within a period of one W.P.(C) No. 22203 of 2016 -6- month and until such time, direction was issued to keep in abeyance the revenue recovery proceedings. 8. Be that as it may, in respect of the present demand, there is no stay as far as the demand made for the assessment years 87-88 and 88-89 are concerned. In the said circumstances, it is always open for the revenue recovery authorities to recover the said amount in accordance with law and if necessary, by issuing fresh demand, if applicable. However, in respect of matters for which stay is already granted, the recovery shall be kept in abeyance until orders passed by the Tribunal as directed in W.P.(c) No.26739/2016. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. **Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE** Scl/17.08.2016