Dismissed

O.K. Sarojini v. Rto, Kasargod

Kerala HC21 Feb 2008WP(C)/3366/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged revenue recovery action claiming G forms were filed. Court found that the period covered by the G forms and the demand memo differed; since no G forms were filed for the memo period, revenue recovery action was legitimate. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; revenue recovery action maintained as petitioner did not file G forms for the relevant period.

O.K. Sarojini Vs Rto, Kasargod — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

W.P.(C).No. 3366 of 2008 (A) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

-----------

¶8

SMT. O.K. SAROJINI, W/O. C.KRISHNAN, NALANDA, PALLIKKARA P.O., NILESHWAR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶10

RESPONDENTS: -------------

¶11

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,KASARGOD.

¶12

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, HOSDURG.

¶13

BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶16

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶17

W.P. (C) No. 3366 OF 2008 - A

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶19

Dated this the 21^st day of February, 2008

¶20

Petitioner submits that he has filed Exts.P1(a) to P1(e) G forms

¶21

for the periods mentioned therein. It is stated by the petitioner that despite filing the G forms, Ext.P2 demand notice was issued calling upon her to explain as to why tax has not been levied. On receipt of this, petitioner filed Ext.P3. Complaining that revenue recovery action is continued by Exts.P4 and P5 this writ petition has been filed.

¶22

As already noticed, what the petitioner asserts is that G forms have been filed and that, ignoring the same, revenue recovery action is continuing. It is rightly pointed out by the learned Govt. Pleader that the period covered by Ext.P1 G forms and the period for which Ext. P2 memo issued are totally different. Therefore, for the period covered by Ext. P2 memo no G forms were filed. In view of

¶23

W.P.(C) No. 3366 OF 2008

¶24

- 2 -

¶25

this, I cannot find fault with the revenue recovery action that is initiated by the respondents.

¶26

Though misleading submissions have been made in this

¶27

writ petition, I leave the matter at that.

¶28

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶29

ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

¶30

jan/-

O.K. Sarojini v. Rto, Kasargod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.K. Sarojini v. Rto, Kasargod

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

M.Peter Vs the Indian Bank,Kottarakkara Branch

A.D.Divya Vs Secretary, Rta/Rto, Thrissur

Union Bank of India Vs the District Collector & Others

Rajeev.R. Vs the R.T.a.,Kollam

Mani George Vs the Chief Engineer

Dr.Antony Alappat Vs District Collector & Another