Disposed

G. Soman, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jun 2019WP(C)/5118/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the continuing attachment of property for electricity and sales tax dues. After the petitioner deposited dues under a One Time Settlement, the court directed Revenue Authorities to examine the grievance and maintain status quo for eight weeks pending a final decision.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file objections against attachment; Revenue Authorities directed to examine grievance and order removal of attachment within four weeks; Status quo maintained for eight weeks.

G. Soman, Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 5118 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

G. SOMAN, AGED 61 YEARS ROHINI, MYLOM, PALLICKAL, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.SABU PULLAN SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 THE CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ULOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.

¶12

3 THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, AANEPPIL, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM-691012.

¶13

4 THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.

¶14

W.P.(C) No. 5118/2019

¶15

-2-

¶16

5 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOLLAM691001.

¶17

6 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.

¶18

7 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM-691506.

¶19

BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA SRI.KOSHY GEORGE

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

GP SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Heard Dr. K.P. Satheesan, the learned Senior Counsel, and Sri

¶25

Mathew George Vadakkel, the learned Government Pleader.

¶26

Read order dated 21.02.2019.

¶27

“Without prejudice to the contentions in the writ petition, petitioner is permitted to pay the amount as referred to in Ext.P11

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 5118/2019

¶29

-3-

¶30

under One Time Settlement Scheme. Payment has to be effected before the expiry date. It is made clear that this will be subject to further orders to be passed in this matter.”

¶31

The learned Counsel appearing for the parties state that

¶32

the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.18,90,388/- under One Time Settlement. The case of the petitioner is that substantially now continuing the attachment under Ext.P8 for alleged electricity and sales tax dues is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. According to petitioner, the petitioner is not under obligation, or for that matter is not in arrears under these heads to the exchequer. Continuing the attachment, for realization of electricity and sales tax dues, made under Ext.P8 is unsustainable. The issue substantially centers round consideration of the liability of petitioner and thereafter proceeding to recover the lawfully payable amount by the respondents.

¶33

To meet the ends of justice and particularly keeping in

¶34

view the deposit of Rs.18,90,388/- made by the petitioner the writ petition is disposed of by this order:

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 5118/2019

¶36

-4-

¶37

(a) The petitioner is given liberty to file representation/ objection before the District Collector and Tahsildar, against Ext.P8 attachment by enclosing a copy of this judgment for continuing the attachment notwithstanding complying with the payment of welfare fund arrears within two weeks from today.

¶38

(b) The District Collector and Tahsildar/7^th respondent are directed to examine the grievance of the petitioner, afford opportunity, provide copies of orders on which the Revenue Recovery proceedings are initiated and pass final orders positively within four weeks from the date of receipt of representation from the petitioner.

¶39

(c) With a view to ensuring preservation of property and protecting the interest of both the parties, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date vis-à-vis the properties covered by Ext.P6 for eight weeks from today.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

jjj

W.P.(C) No. 5118/2019

¶45

-5-

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.7.2006 IN WPC.18189/2006 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK KOTTARAKARA DATED 30.10.2006 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CLEARNACNE CERTIFICATE FILED BY THE PETITIONER 21.11.2012 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 31.12.2005

¶49

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.10.2006 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.11.2012 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.7.2015 IN WPC.30267/2012 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE WITH FILE NO.D221219/16, D2-21220/16 AND D2-21221/16 DATED 23.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D2-16462/16 DATED 23.1.2017 GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPODNENT EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.8.2018 IN WPC.4151/2017 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ESTT. A2/8648/18 DATED 11.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶50

W.P.(C) No. 5118/2019

¶51

-6-

¶52

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.D2-16462/16 DATED 22.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT

¶53

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT NO.966226 DATED 28.02.2019 OF PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK DRAWN IN FABOUR OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT

G. Soman, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Soman, 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

Biji M.J. Vs the State of Kerala

Madaparambil Varkey Varghese Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Shaji Jacob, Vs the Regional Transport Officer

N.O.George Vs the Chief Executive Officer

R.Poobalakrishnan, Vs the Intelligence Officer

Young Men Christian Association Vs Centralized Processing Centre