Allowed

Varghese David v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2007WP(C)/7865/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition challenging a recovery notice under a final determination order was disposed of by leaving the order untouched but granting a one-month time to pay the balance tax, adjusting for amounts already paid, and limiting recovery to actual dues.

What did the court decide?

One month's time granted to pay the balance tax after adjusting amounts already paid; recovery to be made for the balance amount after one month if default continues.

Varghese David Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 28TH BHADRA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 7865 of 2006(J)

PETITIONER:

SRI.VARGHESE DAVID, S/O.THOMAS DAVID, KOIKALATHEU, MUNDUKOTTACKAL P.O.PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW

¶11

SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE DISTRICT EXEUCTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶17

R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL, SC,KMTWF BOARD

¶18

R1 AND R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SREEKRISHNA

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE AGREEMENT DATED 15.6.2004 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF SEBASTIAN JOSEPH.

¶24

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF 2002-03 DATED NIL.

¶25

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL DETERMINATION ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF 2004-05 DATED 13.7.2005

¶26

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DEMANDING RS. 22,092/- FROM THE PETITIONER DATED 18.7.2005

¶27

2ND RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXT.R2(a) PHOTOCOPY OF THEDETERMINATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 8.2.2005

¶29

EXT.R2(b) PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶30

EXT.R2(c) PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENQUIRY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5.3.2005

¶31

EXT.R2(d) PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER DATED 20.4.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶32

EXT.R2(e) PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE COVER RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY.

¶33

EXT.R2(f) PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER SHEET ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT INQUIRY NO. EP 483/2003

¶34

TRUE COPY

¶35

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶36

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.

¶37

W.P.C. NO. 7865 OF 2006

¶38

Dated this the 19th day of September, 2007

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

Petitioner was admittedly operating stage carriage during 2003-

¶41

The demand under challenge is based on final determination order

¶42

produced by the second respondent as Ext.R2(d). It is seen that demand is made only for two workers whereas a stage carriage with two doors cannot be operated without a minimum of four workers. Therefore if the matter is remanded assessment will be made leading to serious adverse orders against the petitioner. In the circumstances, and since petitioner was served with pre-assessment notice, evidenced by Ext. R2(b) acknowledgement, there is no scope for interference with the final determination order based on which recovery is made. However, recovery should be limited to the balance amount payable after adjusting the amount already paid, proof of which will be produced by the petitioner before the Tahsildar. If the petitioner has made payment voluntarily, no collection charges will be recovered from the petitioner or otherwise recovery will be made with collection

¶43

¶44

charges. Petitioner is also granted one month's time to make payment of the balance tax and recovery will be continued after one month, that

¶45

too if default is continued.

¶46

W.P. is disposed of as above.

¶47

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge

¶48

Varghese David v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varghese David v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Autumn Wood Resorts Vs the Agrl.Income Tax& Sales Tax

M/S.Skyline Builders Vs State of Kerala

P.Rukiya Bai Vs State of Kerala

Rajkumar Vs Board of Directors

P.v.Narayanan Vs Sales Tax Officer

Ms.Amana Jewellers, Malappuram District Vs the Commercial Tax Officer, Perinthalman