IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 3916 of 2002(N) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.PRABHAKARAN, PLAVILA VEEDU, KOTTUKKAL P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SMT.PRIYA MAHESH SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SALES TAX OFFICER, ANCHAL. 2. ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER, ANCHAL. 3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKARA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN FOR R1 TO 3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.7016/2002 IN OP. NO.3916/2002 DISMISSED 01.06.2009 SD/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT FOR 1991-92 TO THE PETITIONER DT. 27.11.97. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT. 15.3.98 FOR 89-90. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 29.1.02 FOR 89-90. P3(a):- COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 29.1.02 FOR 91-92. P4:- COPY OF THE PARTNER SHIP DT. OF M/S. SUPREME LIQUORS , KADAKKAL DT. 15.3.89. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P. (C) No. 3916 of 2002 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 1st day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the action pursued by the departmental authorities for realization of the tax arrears stated as due to the department under the KGST Act. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he is having dual capacity to be assessed, as individual as well as partner of the firm. With respect to the assessment as individual, the petitioner does not have any grievance at all for the assessment year 1991-1992 and the grievance is confined only to the assessment as partner of the firm. The case projected herein is that, when the partnership firm is having as many as 11 partners, the coercive steps are being pursued only against the petitioner, which accordingly to the petitioner is not correct or sustainable, particularly in view of Section 21 (A) KGST Act, the liability specifically being stated as joint and several. 3. Respondents have filed counter affidavit rebutting the averments and allegations raised by the petitioner and pointing out that the respondents, by virtue of specific statutory provision, are entitled to proceed against the petitioner and all other partners jointly and severally. 4. The terms 'joint and several' have been attracting the attention of the Courts for several decades. By virtue of authoritative WP (C) No. 3916 of 2002 : 2 : pronouncement of law by the Apex Court on the point, it is no more to challenge and the concerned authority in favour whom the liability is outstanding, is very much entitled to proceed against the concerned person of their choice or all the persons as above. This being the position, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner, because of satisfying the entire liability as demanded by the respondents, it is for him to pursue appropriate steps against the other partners as well, for apportionment of the liability and to get proportionate share from the other partners, which however, cannot be the look out of the Government or department. As such, no interference is called for. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. However, it is made clear this will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner to pursue the steps for availing the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme declared by the Government. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd