The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging demand notices under Section 7 of the RR Act. The court held that the sale agreement explicitly mandated the petitioner to clear KGST and CST liabilities up to Rs. 18 lakhs, barring the writ challenge.
Demand notices under Section 7 of the RR Act were upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931
WP(C).No. 1955 of 2009(G)
PETITIONER(S):
BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
RESPONDENT(S):
ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA FOR R4 SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN FOR R4 SRI.TERRY V.JAMES FOR R4
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN FOR R1-3
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.1955/2009
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
| EXHIBIT P1 | : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 30.03.2007 BETWEEN M/S.ELMAG WIRES LTD. AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | : TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE NO. E6-22/08-09/55 DATED 09/12/08 ISSUED UNDER S. 7 OF THE RR ACT. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. E6-25/08-09/ST DATED 09/12/08 ISSUED UNDER S.7 OF THE RR ACT. /TRUE COPY/ |
P.A. TO JUDGE.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
WP(C) No. 1955 of 2009
Dated, this the 17th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers.
(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibit P2 and Exhibit P3 demand notices issued under Section 7 of the RR Act.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order restraining the respondents 1 to 3 from proceeding against the petitioners under Exhibit P2 and P3 demand notices.
2
WP(C) No.1955/2009
respondent is very much qualified by virtue of the terms in Ext.P1 Agreement. The learned Government Pleader also brought it to the notice of this Court that Ext.P1 itself clearly shows under 'clause 2.19' that the liability which is impugned in the Writ Petition is exclusively mulcted upon the petitioner. The said clause is extracted hereunder.
' Clause – 2.19':- All outstanding income tax and taxes and duties of any type concerning the operations of Seller, inclusive of withholding tax, have been regularly paid in the amount due other than amounts due as TDS payable, KGST and KVAT payable, CST payable and interest thereon not exceeding Rs.18 lakhs which the seller shall pay and settle within 60 days of the Effective Date.
The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE
dnc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the exemption clause in the sale agreement validly shifts KGST and CST liability to the seller for amounts under Rs. 18 lakhs, shielding the purchaser from tax demand notices.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
JIMMY JOSE
BOBBY JOSE
DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM
VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM
COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE II, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
M/S.STABLE MAGNET WIRE PRIVATE LTD.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
