IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35881 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI, S/O.BHASKARA PILLAI, AGED 42, VILAVEETTIL VADAKKATHIL, NEDUMPANA,KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR), SRI.P.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOLLAM. 2. THE SALE TAX OFFICER, KUNDARA, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 35881 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Revenue recovery steps initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext. P3 notice is under challenge in this writ petition. The amount sought to be realised pertains to arrears of sales tax due from the petitioner in connection with the business activity carried on under the name and style M/s. Royal Wood Products, which a registered dealer under the 2nd respondent. It is conceded by the petitioner that Form 18 declarations issued to him was entrusted with his brother and one Sri. Hakkim, a friend of his brother. It is further conceded that the said persons have misused the Form 18 declarations, forging signature of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not aware about any such transactions and he was not served with any proceedings fixing liability for payment of tax. The grievance of the petitioner at present is that, for recovering amounts due, his immovable property is now being proceeded against. It is stated that the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent under Ext.P4 petition seeking to WP(C) .35881/2010 2 furnish information and copies of documents under the provisions of the Right to Information Act and without considering such request, coercive steps are now being pursued. 2. Considering the facts narrated as above, it is evident that the petitioner was having registration with respect to a business establishment and that the transactions were carried out under that registration. It is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy against the assessment, if any finalised. Unless the petitioner is able to refute the liability,,,, the recovery steps could not be assailed in a successful manner. If the petitioner is not served with copies of the assessment or other proceedings, it is for him to approach the 2nd respondent with proper application for getting certified copy and to take appropriate statutory remedy against such proceedings. Under such circumstances the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed . 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court in restraining coercive steps of recovery for a limited period, in order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent for getting certified copies and for taking appropriate statutory remedy against such proceedings. WP(C) .35881/2010 3 Considering the facts and circumstances, while dismissing the writ petition, the respondents are restrained from taking any further coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P3 notice for a period of one month from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .35881/2010 4