Allowed

Ajith Philips v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jan 2016WP(C)/3505/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the State to accept basic tax and issue a possession certificate to petitioners despite pending revenue recovery proceedings. The order clarified that the State retains its right to proceed against the property for one partner's default through remarks in the certificate.

What did the court decide?

Basic tax was directed to be accepted and possession certificate issued to petitioners.

Ajith Philips Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/21ST POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 3505 of 2005 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. AJITH PHILIPS, MANAGING PARTNER, PHILIPS MUSIC AGENCIES,

¶8

KUNDARA, KOLLAM.

¶9

2. SALOMA PHILIP, PARTNER, PHILIPS MUSIC AGENCIES, KUNDARA, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SAI KRISHNA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRHIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶14

3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, ELAMBALLOOR, KUNDARA, KOLLAM.

¶15

*ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED

¶16

---------------------------------

¶17

*ADDL.R4. SALES TAX OFFICER KUNDARA.

¶18

*ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO. 11728/2005 DATED 16/8/2005

¶19

R1 TO R3 & ADDL. R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MANOJ P. KUNJACHAN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

...2/-

¶23

WP(C).No. 3505 of 2005 (P)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶26

EXT.P1	: COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND MR. P.A. PHILIP DATED 01/04/1992.
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2848/2001 OF KUNDARA SRO, DATED 30/5/2001.
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX BY THE FIRM DATED 5/8/2004.
EXT.P4	COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS DATED 20/3/2002.
EXT.P5	COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 91/2004 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 25/9/2004.
EXT.P6	COPY OF THE SALES TAX REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE LATE FATHER OF THE FIRST PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. PHILIP MUSICS.
EXT.P7	COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT IN RESPECT OF THE FIRM M/S. PHILIPS MUSIC AGENCIES.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(C)No.3505 of 2005

¶34

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

¶35

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2016.

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Petitioners are partners of a firm by name 'M/s.Philip Music

¶38

Agencies'. They approached this court on account of refusal to issue possession certificate and refusal to accept basic tax.

¶39

It appears that, one of the partner of the firm has a liability to the

¶40

State and the State has initiated revenue recovery proceedings. The writ petition is filed in the year 2005.

¶41

This court is of the view that, since the revenue recovery proceedings is not under challenge, the issue relating to possession certificate and

¶42

to accept basic tax alone need be considered.

¶43

There is no impediment in law in accepting basic tax or issuing

¶44

W.P.(C)No.3505 of 2005

¶45

-:2:-

¶46

possession certificate, even if revenue recovery proceedings are pending. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the State to proceed against the property, in accordance with law, the basic tax shall be accepted and possession certificate shall be issued to the petitioners.

¶47

It is made clear that, any right available to the State to proceed against the property is not lost on account of this direction. If there are subsisting recovery proceedings pending against the petitioners' property, the revenue authorities are free to make such remarks in the certificate. All issues, relating to the right of the State, to proceed against the property in respect of the default committed by one of the partners, based on independent right, are left open.

¶48

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶49

A. Muhamed Mustaque, Judge.

¶50

sl.

Ajith Philips v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajith Philips 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

Sandra Thankam Vs the State of Kerala

Athira Raj Vs State of Kerala

Kunhikoya Vs Land Acquisition Collector

Vidya a. Pillai Vs the Controller of Examinations

Athulya Jose Vs State of Kerala

P.J.Babu Vs the Election Commission of India