IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 29316 of 2010(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- G.VENU, S/O.LATE GANGADHARA PILLAI, AGED 52 YEARS, KANJAMKUZHI PADINAJATTATHIL VEEDU, UMAYANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM-691 589. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1. 2. THE TAHASILDAR (RR), OFFICE OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY TAHASILDAR, KOLLAM - 1. 3. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SALES TAX OFFICER, KOLLAM - 1. 4. FALGUNAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN THANTHRI, KAMMAMCHERIMADAM, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM - 4. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 29316 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 proclamation issued under section 47 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act is under challenge int his writ petition. 2. The amount sought to be recovered pertains to arrears of Sales Tax. According to the petitioner, the amount is due from the 4th resplendent who was conducting a Foreign Liquor Shop under an Abkari Licence. It is stated by the petitioner that he was only a guarantor to the 4th respondent, who was the licensee and the registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. On the basis of such contentions, it is stated that the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner is not sustainable. 3. Raising similar contentions, the petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion. In Ext.P5 judgment this Court directed the 2nd respondent to proceed W.P.(C) No. 29316/2010 2 against the 4th respondent, if he was the dealer and licensee. It was made clear that the petitioner could be called upon to make payment of the amount only if it was not realized from the 4th respondent and only on verification from the 3rd respondent as well as the Excise authorities as to whether the liability of the petitioner is only that of a guarantor or surety. It was also directed that the 3rd respondent should decide as to whether the petitioner has got any liability, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. It is stated that on the basis of the directions contained in Ext.P5 judgment, the petitioner was called for a personal hearing on issuing Ext.P7 notice. Complaint of the petitioner is that without informing about the decision taken in this regard, coercive steps of recovery was proceeded against and the property belonging to the petitioner was proclaimed for sale pursuant to Ext.P8 notice. 5. In a statement filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent W.P.(C) No. 29316/2010 3 it is categorically mentioned that the petitioner was running the liquor shop in the name and style as “Thelakkara Wines”. It is further stated that the application for registration under the K.G.S.T. Act was submitted by the petitioner himself and that the petitioner had furnished security to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs by executing bond as prescribed under the KGST Rules. The said bond was executed undertaking the liability in his own name, is the contention. 6. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has stoutly refuted the above statement asserting that the petitioner was only a surety to the 4th respondent with respect to conduct of the business. Under such circumstances, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to produce copies of relevant documents. Accordingly, the application submitted for taking registration and the security bond executed by the petitioner were produced before this Court. 7. On a perusal of those documents, it is evident that W.P.(C) No. 29316/2010 4 the petitioner himself submitted the application for registration and executed security bond for the purpose of granting registration. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner himself is the assessee and he is liable for payment of the arrears of Sales Tax. 8. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.