IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 9560 of 2002(K) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ B.VIJAYAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PERUMPUZHA, KUNDARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, PUNALUR. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.17060/2002 IN OP NO.9560/2002 DISMISSED: 7.1.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.A-2415/88(88-89) DT.18.3.91 FOR 1988-89. P2: PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DT.14.2.92 IN O.S. NO.883/1991. P3: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.STA(PNR) 742/91 DT.7.6.94. P4: PHOTOCOPY OF MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.A.2415/88/88-89 DT.30.10.98 BY R1. P5: PHOTOCOPY OF DEMAND NOTICE NO.DS 6212/01 DT.9.1.02 FROM R2 TO PETITIONER. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.9560 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT First ground of challenge against revised sales tax assessment that petitioner was not the dealer, but the Firm of which petitioner was a managing partner was the dealer, is not tenable because petitioner as licencee carried on abkari business and being managing partner of the business is liable to pay tax under Section 21 of the KGST Act. Obviously petitioner as individual was given opportunity in assessment and he has even filed appeal and Ext.P3 order in appeal is partly in his favour. Since abkari business was carried on by the licencee and petitioner is the licencee and managing partner of the Firm which is stated to have carried on business, the challenge against assessment on the technical ground that assessment order should have been issued in the name of the Firm is thoroughly unacceptable. Since assessment was completed after notice to the petitioner and since the turnover assessed represents business turnover, nothing more is required to justify assessment. Moreover, even if the liability is that of the firm, petitioner as managing partner is liable along with other partners who are jointly and severally liable. Therefore, 2 recovery is permissible against the petitioner. If the petitioner wants to claim the amount from other partners, it is upto the petitioner to approach the civil court in terms of the Partnership Act and deed. However, if appellate order is not properly implemented, it is for the petitioner to make an application for rectification before the Assessing Officer for him to revise the assessment in terms of the appellate order. The assessing authority is directed to do so ignoring limitation if any in filing rectification application under Section 43 against revised order, if an application is filed within two months from today. Since this court has in the interim order itself stated that civil court has no jurisdiction in the matter and the decree remained stayed under orders of this court and since the matter is decided on merit by this court in writ proceeding, the respondents will ignore the decree if any obtained by the petitioner contrary to this judgment and proceed for recovery of the revised demand. The O.P. is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms