IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 1955 of 2009(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JIMMY JOSE, RESIDING AT G 245, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036. 2. BOBBY JOSE, RESIDING AT G 245, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682011. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 3. COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE II, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. M/S.STABLE MAGNET WIRE PRIVATE LTD., PLOT NO.4, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, KOCHI-682 037. ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA FOR R4 SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN FOR R4 SRI.TERRY V.JAMES FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.1955/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 30.03.2007 BETWEEN M/S.ELMAG WIRES LTD. AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE NO. E6-22/08-09/55 DATED 09/12/08 ISSUED UNDER S. 7 OF THE RR ACT. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. E6-25/08-09/ST DATED 09/12/08 ISSUED UNDER S.7 OF THE RR ACT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 1955 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers. (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibit P2 and Exhibit P3 demand notices issued under Section 7 of the RR Act. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order restraining the respondents 1 to 3 from proceeding against the petitioners under Exhibit P2 and P3 demand notices. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 3. The case of the petitioner projected in the Writ Petition is that the establishment of the petitioner, has been sold to the 4th respondent by virtue of Ext.P1 Agreement and hence that the liability, if any to satisfy the demand, is exclusively upon the 4th respondent. It is for this reason that the demand notice issued by the concerned respondent in pursuit of the recovery proceedings has been subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the contentions raised by the petitioner with reference to Ext.P1 are not in conformity with the actual facts and figures and the liability of the 4th WP(C) No.1955/2009 2 respondent is very much qualified by virtue of the terms in Ext.P1 Agreement. The learned Government Pleader also brought it to the notice of this Court that Ext.P1 itself clearly shows under 'clause 2.19' that the liability which is impugned in the Writ Petition is exclusively mulcted upon the petitioner. The said clause is extracted hereunder. 'Clause – 2.19':- All outstanding income tax and taxes and duties of any type concerning the operations of Seller, inclusive of withholding tax, have been regularly paid in the amount due other than amounts due as TDS payable, KGST and KVAT payable, CST payable and interest thereon not exceeding Rs.18 lakhs which the seller shall pay and settle within 60 days of the Effective Date. 5. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner has undertaken to clear the entire KGST and CST liability with interest to an extent of not exceeding Rs.18 lakhs within 16 days of the effective date. There is no case for the petitioner that the liability exceeds the specified limit, so as to take the petitioner outside the binding nature of the said clause. This being the position, the contention raised by the petitioner to the contrary does not hold any water at all and this Court does not find any merit or bonafides in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc