IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 22599 of 2001(M) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. P.A.THOMAS, S/O.ANTONY, PANAKKAL HOUSE, MAMMIYOUR, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. P.A.JOJU, S/O.ANTONY, PANAKKAL HOUSE, MAMMIYOUR, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. P.A.SIMON, S/O.ANTONY, PANAKKAL HOUSE, MAMMIYOUR, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.KHADIRKUNJU SRI.P.G.DANIEL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD. 3. ASSISTANT SALES TAX OFFICER, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY SHRI.K.P.PRADEEP, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO. 22599/2001 ORDER ON CMP NO.36899/2001 IN O.P.NO. 22599/2001 DISMISSED. 18/01/2008 SD/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED DATED 29/06/2001 UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE RR ACT. P2 : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 29/06/2001 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE RR ACT. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------- O.P. No. 22599 of 2001 ------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of sales tax dues for the year 1997-98. Even though petitioners' case is that they have not been served with notices of assessment and assessment orders, the counter affidavit filed discloses that notices were sent and were served at least to 2nd petitioner, one of the partners and to one Mr.Tomy Simon, and they have signed the acknowledgment card. Petitioners are admittedly partners of the defaulted firm, M/s.Panakkal Wines. Service of notice and order on one of the partners has the affect of service of notice on the firm. Moreover, it is reported that the order sent to the 1st petitioner in the address given by another partner, Mr.Tomy Simon, was returned unclaimed. It is not known whether petitioners have deposited Rs.1 lakh in terms of the interim orders. I do not find any merit in the challenge against recovery proceedings without challenge against the assessment orders, which petitioners are free to collect and challenge in statutory proceedings by way of appeal. However, if petitioners want to settle liability, I feel, petitioners can be granted 40% rebate on interest in terms of O.P.NO. 22599/2001 -2- the amnesty benefit of 2004 that was available during pendency of the original petition. This original petition is, accordingly, disposed of waiving 40% of the penal interest, if entire arrears of tax and 60% interest are paid within one month from receipt of this judgment. If payment is not made as above, waiver of 40% of interest granted will stand automatically vacated on default and thereafter, entire arrears can be recovered from petitioners and other partners in terms of Section 21 of the KGST Act. This is without prejudice to any instalment or benefit available to petitioners under Government Orders. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) jg