IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21608 of 2007(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: KUMARAN, AGE 39, S/O.MANIYAN, MANIMANGALAM, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT TC 43/1020, 'PADMA VILASAM' MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.PRABHU VIJAYAKUMAR SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL SRI.JOJO VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SALES TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, PERURKADA. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SHIBU B.S., ROYAL TRADERS, ASWATHY BHAVAN, MACHEYIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLAM POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM RURAL. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC 21608/2007 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE XT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PTITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SIXTH RESPONDENT EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OP 12873/02 (G) /TRUE COPY/ P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.21608 of 2007 V ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Exhibit P1 revenue recovery notice issued for realising the arrears due under the sales tax laws, contending that no such liability is to be mulcted on the shoulders of the petitioner, as he has not stood as a surety to anybody, nor is he a dealer or defaulter, to be proceeded against by way of Exhibit P1. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fifth respondent obtained sales tax registration and committed some default in satisfying the sales tax arrears. It is the said liability that is sought to be realised from the petitioner in the alleged capacity as a surety. Reference is made to the representations spreferred by the petitioner in this regard, such as Exhibit P2 preferred before the first respondent, Exhibit P3 before the second respondent, Exhibit P4 before the sixth respondent and also Exhibit P5 before the third respondent. Learned counsel WPC 21608/07 2 also submits that under similar circumstance, this Court passed Exhibit P6 judgment in O.P.No.12873/2002, directing the first respondent to call for the records from the sales tax office and verify whether any bond was executed by the petitioner and if so, to proceed with the steps for recovery to the extent it is actually covered by the bond. The petitioner seeks to extend the benefit flowing from Exhibit P6 to the petitioner as well. 4. In spite of the specific averments and allegations raised in the writ petition, the fact remains that no counter affidavit has been filed from the part of the respondents. In such circumstances, this Court finds that petitioner is liable to get the benefit flowing from Exhibit P6. 5. Accordingly, first respondent is directed to call for the records from the Office of the third respondent and ascertain whether any 'bond' is executed by the petitioner and if so, to recover from him the due amount to the extent it is covered by the bond. If the petitioner is not a surety and has not executed any bond, respondents are free to proceed against the defaulter and his properties, after identifying the same. This Court refrains from passing any interim order of stay, as the interim order WPC 21608/07 3 passed by this Court in this regard on 17.7.2007, originally for a period of three weeks, stands expired years ago and no petition for revival and extension of stay has been preferred by the petitioner. 6. The proceedings as above shall be finalised by the respondents as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above. (P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge) tkv