IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12986 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANIL G.SHENOY,S/O.A.S.GUNA SHENOY, AGED 33 YEARS,XL/4028-B.,SHANTHINIKETHAN, T.D.WEST SANNIDHI ROAD,COCHIN-35. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, (FAST TRACK TEAM),COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE II,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE-2.,TRIPUNITHURA. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR)., KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM. ' 4. MATHEW JOSHUVA,S/O.JOSHUVA,KOPRAPARAMBIL HOUSE,VADUTHALA,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682023. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH FOR R4 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN FOR R4 SRI.V.R.REKESH FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2010, ALONG WITH W.P(C) NO.22947 OF 2010. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ------------------------------- W.P(C) Nos.12986/2010 & 22947/2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners herein were the partners of a firm and were doing business under the name and style M/s.Q Digital Infotech. The challenge is mainly against the assessment finalised under the KGST Act, by the concerned Fast Track Team, as borne by Ext.P4 order in W.P(C) No.12986 of 2010 and Ext.P2 series in the other case. The contention of the petitioner in the former case is mainly to the effect that he retired from the firm in the year 2003 and the other continuing partner, who is the petitioner in the other case, is to be proceeded against, if necessitated. 2. When the matter came up for consideration on 15.7.2010, it was stated by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, that the entire liability has been discharged already and the case was adjourned to ascertain the position. In the meanwhile, the fourth respondent in the former case has filed the subsequent Writ Petition (W.P(C) No.22947 of 2010) stating that, challenging Ext.P2 series assessment orders, the said petitioner has preferred W.P(C) Nos.12986/2010 & 22947/2010 2 Ext.P8 series petitions seeking to rectify the error apparent on the face of the records and in turn has challenged the correctness and sustainability of the assessment itself. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the materials on record that, the petitioner in the former case though retired from the partnership in the year 2003, Ext.P4 assessment is in respect of the assessment year 2001-02. This being the position, the petitioner can’t seek himself to be absolved from the liability. The factual position in this regard particularly as to the year of retirement of the petitioner in W.P(C) No.12986 of 2010 from the firm and the year of assessment, not being a matter of dispute, no interference in this Writ Petition is warranted. Accordingly, interference is declined and W.P(C) No.12986 of 2010 is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy available in accordance with law. 4. With regard to the prayer in W.P(C) No.22947 of 2010, it is evident that Ext.P2 series assessment orders were passed by the Fast Track Team on 30.1.2009, whereas the petitioner chose to file Ext.P8 series application for rectification only on 20.7.2010 ie after W.P(C) Nos.12986/2010 & 22947/2010 3 getting the other case (where he is the fourth respondent) adjourned on 15.7.2010 wrongly stating that the liability has already been satisfied by him. This being the position, the said petitioner did not intend to challenge the above assessment orders any time before and that filing of Ext.P8 series applications for rectification is only an afterthought and no interference is warranted in this Writ Petition as well, but for making it clear that it will not stand against the petitioner in W.P(C) No.22947 of 2010 in availing the statutory remedy. 5. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to call for the interference in both the Writ Petitions and they are accordingly dismissed; however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedy available in accordance with law. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab