IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 27894 of 2003(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- E.T.DIVAKARAN MOOSS, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.RAVI MOOSS, THAIKKAT ILLOM, SINDHU NIVAS, ANANDAPURAM P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER - II, 4TH CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA. 3. E.T.NARAYANAN MOOSS, S/O.RAVI MOSS, THAIKKAT ILLOM, EDAKKUNNI, THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ FOR R1,2 SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF CHANGE OF CONSTITUTION OF FIRM SENT TO THE REGISTRAR OF PARTNERSHIP DATED 3.1.1995 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SENT TO THE REGISTRAR OF FIRMS BY THE PETITIONER INTIMATING HIS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE PARTNERSHIP DATED NIL. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INDEMNITY BOND EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 3.1.1995 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 2.11.2002 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 26.11.2002 ISSUED TO THE FIRST ND 2ND RESPONDENTS EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED 27.11.2002 EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P5 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 14.6.2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 27894 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The challenge is against recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of sales tax which runs into lakhs of rupees due from a firm of which petitioner and third respondent and their mother were partners. Obviously liability is to be settled by the partners of the firm, and on failure properties of the partners would be attached and sold. Inspite of orders issued by this Court to make sale of the properties, respondents 1 and 2 have not cared to do anything in the matter. In the circumstances, I dispose of the Writ Petition directing the second respondent to refer the matter to the District Collector, Trichur, for him to oversee the recovery proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the RR Act and Rules. Besides, sales tax arrears, employees dues and other arrears for which recovery was initiated, are also to be recovered. Whoever is aggrieved can raise objection before the District Collector to consider the objection in recovery proceedings. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2