Disposed

Faisal.a.M v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jan 2017WP(C)/564/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala considered a writ petition challenging a revenue recovery notice issued against a petitioner, a partner in a dissolved firm. While noting the apparent dissolution and lack of intimation to authorities, the Court stayed recovery only conditionally if an appeal was filed, deposit being made, without deciding the merits of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Recovery steps stayed for one month on deposit of Rs.50,000 and undertaking to file appeal; stay limited to petitioner.

Faisal.a.M Vs State of Kerala — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/19TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

W.P.(C).No.564 of 2017 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

FAISAL.A.M., ATHIMANNIL HOUSE, PATTARKULAM, NARUKARA.PO, MANJERI - 676 122.

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.RAAGA R.RAMALAKSHMI SRI.IMAM GRIGORIOS KARAT SRI. RAHUL KANDAMPULLY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MINI CIVIL STATION, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM - 676 121.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, ERANAD, MANJERI - 676 121.

¶13

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDDIN.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶15

WP(C).No.564 of 2017 (U)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶18

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 15.03.2011.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 04.01.2017.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 10.03.2016 FOR THE PERIOD OF 2012-2013.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 10.03.2016 FOR THE PERIOD 2013-2014.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.05.2016 FOR THE PERIOD OF 2012-2013.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.05.2016 FOR THE PERIOD OF 2013-2014.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 10.03.2016 FOR THE PERIOD OF 2012-2013.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 10.05.2016 FOR THE PERIOD OF 2013-2014.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 25.10.2016.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶20

------------------------NIL.

¶21

Vku/[ true copy ]

¶22

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶23

---------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.564 of 2017-U

¶24

----------------------------------------Dated this the 09^th day of January, 2017

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner is aggrieved with the revenue recovery notice issued at Exhibit P9.

¶27

The petitioner admittedly was a partner of a firm, which was registered with the Kerala Value Added Tax authorities as “M/s.Vestel Interiors”. The firm was issued with notice under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for brevity “KVAT Act”], rejecting the annual returns filed for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 as per Exhibits P3 and P4 dated 10.03.2016. No response having been received from the firm or the partners, the Assessing Officer finalised the assessment as per Exhibits P5 and P6 dated 07.05.2016. The demand was also issued as per Exhibits P7 and P8 and revenue recovery was initiated by Exhibit P9.

¶28

The petitioner contends that the petitioner was only one of the partners and that another among the four died. In the context of the death, there is a dissolution of partnership, is the

¶29

¶30

WP(C) No.564 of 2017

¶31

contention raised. If that is so, the petitioner or the other partners ought to have informed the Department about the dissolution of the firm and also ought to have obtained fresh registration, if the business was to be continued. The death is said to have occurred in December, 2014. There is no contention taken of any such intimation having been given to the Deprtment. The business is also said to have ceased on dissolution. In such circumstance, the partners had an obligation to inform the Department of the address in which communications are to be sent. None of these having been done, there is no reason why this Court should interfere with the demand at Exhibit P9.

¶32

However, only in the context of the petitioner undertaking to file an appeal within two weeks, the recovery steps shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month on the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees fifty thousand only] within two weeks from today. If the appeal is filed, then the further recovery shall depend upon the orders passed in the stay petition. It is also made clear that the recovery is stayed only as against the petitioner and not against the other partners.

¶33

¶34

WP(C) No.564 of 2017

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of, without any observation

¶36

on merits.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶39

vku/-

¶40

[ true copy ]

Faisal.a.M v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faisal.a.M 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.K.Sreerekha Vs Dr.Usha Titus

Esmario Export Enterprises Vs M.v.`Maersk Aberdeen' V.0418 Vessel

Vijesh P.G Vs the Federal Banak Ltd.

Resmi Vidyasagar Vs Indu K.Paul

Sanalkumar M.S. Vs Joshy Paul Veliyath

Verghese M.O Vs Authorised Officer