IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1750 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29316/2010 Dated 11/11/2010 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------------------ G.VENU,S/O.LATE GANGADHARA PILLAI, KANJAMKUZHI PADINJATTATHIL VEEDU, UMAYANALLOOR.P.O,KOLLAM-691589. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR(RR),OFFICE OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY TAHSILDAR,KOLLAM-691001. 3. THE SALES TAX OFFICER,OFFICE OF THE SALES TAX OFFICER,KOLLAM-691001. 4. FALGUNAN,S/O.GOVINDAN THANTHRI, KAMMAMCHERIMADAM,KILIKOLLOOR,KOLLAM-691004. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. GEORGE MECHERIL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. 1750/2011 APPENDIX ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. Q4-9970/11 DATED 21.10.2011. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. D5-1831/2000 DATED 16.5.2000. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE D6.6483/98 DATED 20.10.2011. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. NO. 1750 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of sales tax arrears due in respect of the liquor shop. Appellant's case is that he was only a power of attorney holder and the business he is running is in tea vending. However, learned Single Judge found on records that the appellant applied for registration under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act in his name and executed security bond. So much so, the dealer is rightly assessed for the tax and if the appellant is only a power of attorney holder, nothing stops the appellant from proceeding against the principal whom he represents for recovery of tax. We see no merit or bona fides on the part of the petitioner who is either avoiding payment of tax or helping another to evade payment of tax. 2. Even though the counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount demanded under revised demand is much more than what is W.A. 1750/2011 :2: demanded under the original demand, we do not think this issue needs to be considered by this Court. It is for the appellant to raise such contentions before the recovery authority who shall verify the records and recover only the actual amount with interest due. The writ appeal is devoid of any merit. It is dismissed. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) KNC/-