Allowed

The Peermade Tea Company Limited v. the Tahsildar (Rr) Peermade

Kerala HC8 Mar 2012WP(C)/4915/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition by Peermade Tea Company challenging tax recovery proceedings initiated by respondents due to arrears. The court allowed payment via installments to stay recovery actions temporarily.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings stayed pending payment of outstanding liability in three equal monthly installments.

The Peermade Tea Company Limited Vs the Tahsildar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/18TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 4915 of 2009 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THE PEERMADE TEA COMPANY LIMITED, T.C.12/76, 'SILVER OAKS' P.M.G -PULIMOODU ROAD, PATTOM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.T.S.RAJAGOPALAN .

¶8

BY SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.) ADV.SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.TERRY V.JAMES

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), PEERMADE.

¶11

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, UPPTHARA.

¶12

3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY) PEERMADE.

¶13

4. THE TAHSILDAR, PEERMADE.

¶14

5. THE SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.T.LILLY

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

WP(C)NO.4915/2009

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/02/2001 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP NO.2430/2001.

¶22

P2(A) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/05/2001 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP NO.2430/2001.

¶23

P2(B) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/06/2002 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP NO.2430/2001

¶24

P2(C) COPY OF the ORDER DATED 21/05/2004 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP NO.2430/2001.

¶25

P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/6/2005 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE.

¶26

P3(A) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01/1/2007 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP NO.2430/2001.

¶27

P4 COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 27/11/2008 ISSUED UNDER SEC.34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.

¶28

P5 COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 27/11/2008 ISSUED UNDER SEC.7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.

¶29

P6 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13/1/2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶30

P7 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF ASSUMPTION OF MANAGEMENT OF ATTACHED PROPERTY DATED 30/12/2009

¶31

P8 COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE OF IMMOVABLT PROPERTY SERVED WITH EXHIBIT P7 NOTIFICATION.

¶32

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner - tea company is before this Court, being

¶42

aggrieved of the steps taken by the respondents to realize the arrears of basic tax and plantation tax due.

¶43

The petitioner company is having two different tea

¶44

estates, one in the name and style as 'Lone Tree Estate' and the other one by name 'Pirmed Tea Estate' at Elappara. It is stated that the petitioner was not in a position to run the estates because of labour disputes and agitations, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing O.P. No. 2430 of 2001 for police protection, wherein Ext. P1, Ext. P2 (a) to (c) series interim orders were passed. Finally, the said original petition was disposed of as per Ext. P3 judgment, enabling the petitioner to settle the issue, in the following manner.

¶45

“This is a petition for police protection. Various interim directions were issued. Now it is submitted that talks are going on for settlement and steps are being taken to reopen

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 4915 of 2009

¶47

: 2 :

¶48

the Estate. Therefore, with a direction to the police to see that law and order is maintained this original petition is disposed of without prejudice to the disputes pending. The management, workers, police and Labour Officer should see that an early settlement is arrived at. With regard to the interim orders already passed, status quo shall be maintained.

¶49

In the course of time, the petitioner was served with Exts. P4 and P5 notices under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, demanding a total sum of Rs. 15,07,837/- plus interest and such other charges towards the liability under the above mentioned two heads. The petitioner was served with further notice on 13.01.2009 as borne by Ext. P6 by the 4^th respondent, referring to the extent of liability towards the 'basic tax' as well as 'plantation tax' for the period from 2000 - '01 to 2007 - '08 and the latter from 2002 - '03 to 2007 - '08 respectively. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition, seeking interference of this Court, referring to the sequence of events and the plight of the petitioner, who was virtually not in a position to

¶50

W.P.(C) No. 4915 of 2009

¶51

: 3 :

¶52

run the estate, in spite of the favourable orders by this Court during the period in question because of the labour unrest.

¶53

In the course of the proceedings, the petitioner was served with Exts. P7 and P8 notices issued under Sections 39 and 49 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, which were also sought to be challenged and the writ petition was got amended accordingly. It is contended by the petitioner that there is a difference of Rs. 1 lakh in the amounts shown as the liability of the petitioner, between Ext. P4/P5 notices and Ext. P7/P8 notices, which is stated as a ground for seeking interference, contending that the concerned respondents do not have a consistent case at all.

¶54

When the matter came up for admission before this Court on 13.02.2009, the following interim order was passed:

¶55

“Admit

¶56

Issue urgent notice to the respondents returnable within ten days.

¶57

There will be an interim order staying the recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext. P5 in the event of the

¶58

W.P.(C) No. 4915 of 2009

¶59

: 4 :

¶60

petitioner depositing with the 2nd respondent the entire land tax for the period from 2000 - '01 to 2007 - '08 in four equal monthly instalments commencing from 02.03.2009. If the petitioner defaults payment of any two consecutive instalments of land tax, it will be open to the respondents to recover the balance land tax in lump sum”

¶61

In the course of the further proceedings, another

¶62

order came to be passed on 08.02.2010, which reads as

¶63

follows :

¶64

“I.A. No. 1735 of 2010 : This is a petition to amend the writ petition for bringing on record certain subsequent events as well as for challenging Exts. P7 and P8 which are orders issued subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. This petition is filed only to bring on record subsequent events. Therefore, the same is allowed. The petitioner shall produce copies of amended writ petition within a period of two weeks.

¶65

W.P(C) 4915 of 2009: There shall be an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Exts. P7 and P8 proceedings on condition that the petitioner pays 1/3rd of the amount that is demanded as per Ext. P8 within two weeks.”

¶66

The petitioner has filed a memo on 07.03.2012 to the effect

¶67

W.P.(C) No. 4915 of 2009

¶68

: 5 :

¶69

that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, as borne by the receipt dated 08.02.2010 issued by the 4^th respondent, which is stated as paid under protest, towards the basic tax arrears.

¶70

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the course and proceedings pursued by the respondents are not at all correct or sustainable; primarily for the reason that the petitioner was not in a position to run the estate or procure any yield from the estate due to the labour dispute, more so, when the basic tax as well as plantation tax were satisfied from the income derived from the estate. But during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said contention, based on the principles of equity stands negated as per the decision rendered by this Court in Traco Enterprises Vs. Alexander (1964 KLT 467). The arguments are anchored mainly on the other grounds, particularly as to the violation of the principles of

¶71

natural justice, for not having issued any notice and also as to

¶72

W.P.(C) No. 4915 of 2009

¶73

: 6 :

¶74

the absence of any order by the competent authority under the Plantation Tax Act before the matter is proceeded with. It is also the case of the petitioner that Exts. P4 and P5 notices are virtually affixed on the closed down premises of the petitioner's estate and the petitioner was never let known as to the actual factual situation and the notices ought to have been sent by registered post at the registered office at Trivandrum.

¶75

In response to the said submission, the learned Government Pleader submits that the allegation that there is violation of principles of natural justice is devoid of any merit or bona fides and that several notices were sent to the petitioner, besides affixing notices at the premises, seeking to satisfy the liability. It is pointed out that the petitioner was conscious enough to approach this Court by filing different petitions, obtaining favourable interim/final orders, including for police protection as well. The learned Government Pleader also submits that Ext. P6 notice dated 30.01.2009 was

¶76

W.P.(C) No. 4915 of 2009

¶77

: 7 :

¶78

in fact sent to the petitioner, in his address at Trivandum, that too, by registered post. Admittedly since the petitioner has produced a copy of the same as one of the exhibits, it is beyond any sense to contend that the said notice could have been or should have been sent to the registered office of the petitioner at Trivandrum. This Court finds that the learned Government Pleader is fully justified in his submissions and this point is answered against the petitioner.

¶79

Coming to the question of assessment under the Plantation Tax Act, unlike other taxing statutes, it is of a different style, scope and ambit. Fixation of plantation tax under the said Act is with reference to the 'extent of plantation' owned by the person and in the manner as specifically given in the 'first schedule'. How the extent of plantation is to be fixed, is given in 'second schedule'. If at all any variation is there in the extent, it is open for either party i.e. assessee as well as the assessing officer, to have it brought to the notice of the opposite side and to have the

¶80

W.P.(C) No. 4915 of 2009

¶81

: 8 :

¶82

extent refixed accordingly. In other words, once the extent is decided/conceded, the liability or quantum is rather automatic, as given in the first schedule.

¶83

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not aware of the actual extent, since the petitioner was not in physical possession of the entire estate, because of the labour dispute from 2001 onwards and the subsequent turn of events including encroachment and theft of the articles belonging to the petitioner at different points of time. However, the learned counsel also concedes that the petitioner was effecting payment of 'plantation tax' in respect of the plantations, till 2001. There is no case for the petitioner that the said tax which in fact was paid till 2001, was sought to be varied or enhanced by the assessing authority at any point of time. It is also conceded that the petitioner has not filed any return before the authority as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act. Having not chosen to file any return as above and when there is no case for the

¶84

W.P.(C) No. 4915 of 2009

¶85

: 9 :

¶86

petitioner that the assessing authority has increased the extent of liability with reference to variation in extent of plantation, it cannot but be held that the petitioner is very much liable to pay the plantation tax at the same rate as was being satisfied till 2001. It is just the said liability that has been demanded by the assessing authority, issuing various notices. Even after receipt of Ext. P6 notice, the petitioner has not filed any objection before the concerned authority. It also remains a fact that in spite of the interim orders obtained earlier on two occasions, subject to condition, it was not satisfied by the petitioner. At the same time, the petitioner was enjoying the benefit of the interim orders, throughout till a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was deposited.

¶87

Considering the facts and circumstances on the basis of discussions as above, there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the challenge raised by the petitioner as to the liability to pay basic tax as well as plantation tax. Out of the total amount, the petitioner has satisfied only Rs. 10 lakhs

¶88

W.P.(C) No. 4915 of 2009

¶89

: 10 :

¶90

and the balance is still to be satisfied. This being the position, the petitioner is bound to effect the payment, lest coercive steps should follow.

¶91

However, taking note of the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to clear the outstanding liability by way of 'three' equal monthly installments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30^th of this month, followed by the subsequent installments to be effected on or before the last working day of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is made clear that, if any default is committed in satisfying the liability as above, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in lump sum.

¶92

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶93

Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶94

kmd

The Peermade Tea Company Limited v. the Tahsildar (Rr) Peermade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Peermade Tea Company Limited v. the Tahsildar (Rr) Peermade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.K.George Vs Ramarajapremaprasad

Pratheesh Kumar v v Vs M Anil Kumar

P.M.Hassankutty Vs S.S.Kumar

Ms.Hillwood Furniture (P) Ltd. Vs the Asst.Commissioner

V.S.Jyotish Kumar Vs District Collector

The Director General of Police Vs Abdul Rahim O.K