IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 CRP.No. 104 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/01/2010 IN EP 200/06 IN OP(ARB.)107/1992 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DECREE HOLDER ---------------------------------- P.K. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, KUPPAKAPPILLY MELATH, METHALA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR,ASSAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): JUDGEMENT DEBTERS -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT, RIGHT BANK CIRCLE, KOTTARAKKARA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R1 & R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.104 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010. ORDER This revision petition is preferred by the decree holder against Ext.P1, order dated 29.01.2010 of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Kollam in E.P.No.200 of 2006 in O.P.(Arbitration) No.107 of 1992. According to the petitioner, he filed execution petition on 06.02.2004 and the garnishee deposited Rs.1,69,26,800/- on 17.11.2004 on which day according to the petitioner, Rs.1,75,00,949/- was due to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, interest from 06.02.2004 till 17.11.2004 was also due. He claimed that he had paid income tax payable on the sum of Rs.1,69,26,800/- during 2005-06. There was a deposit of Rs.7,72,200/- in the executing court. When petitioner sought release of the said amount, State raised objection that tax payable on the sum of Rs.1,69,26,800/- was not paid and hence petitioner is not entitled to release of the sum of Rs.7,72,200/-. Petitioner claimed that he has already paid tax. But, that contention was not accepted by the executing court. Accordingly his prayer for release of the amount was rejected. That order is under challenge in this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents. 2. It is pointed out by learned counsel that executing court took the view that petitioner received the amount on 23.02.2005 and hence the amount was not taxable during 2005-06 (for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006). CRP No.104/2010 2 Document produced by petitioner to prove payment of tax revealed that assessment was made on 27.06.2006 for the assessment year 2005-06. Executing court took the view that since the assessment year 2005-06 is for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006 but the amount was received by petitioner on 23.02.2005, there was no possibility of the amount being made liable for tax during 2005-06. Holding so, claim made by petitioner was rejected. Learned counsel states that though amount was received on 23.02.2005 it was during the financial year from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005 which was taxable during 2005- 06 (assessment year) and hence the stand taken by executing court is not correct. 3. Having regard to the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner I consider it necessary that the executing court considered the matter afresh taking into account the contention raised by the petitioner and the documents he has produced. I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to produce further documents if any in support of his claim. CRP No.104/2010 3 Resultantly this revision petition is allowed. Order (Ext.P1 dated 29.01.2010) under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the executing court for fresh consideration and disposal after giving both sides opportunity to adduce further evidence if any. Parties shall appear in the executing court on 15.07.2010. I.A.Nos.450 and 451 of 2010 will stand closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks