IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 2649 of 2007(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.V. GEORGE, KUTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VENKURINJI P.O., KOLLAMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY SRI.DR.K.B.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PONKUNNAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (H.QRS.), RANNI. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.P. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 2649/2007-M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE SURETY BOND DATED 08/02/1991. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.1 UNDER REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 16/01/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.10 UNDER REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 16/01/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P. NO. 8236 OF 2001 DATED 20/02/2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 05/08/2006 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HAEMATOLOGY, CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE, VELLORE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P(C) No. 2649 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 29th September , 2010 J U D G M E N T The legal question involved in this case is whether a surety for issuance of the certificate of registration to a dealer, could be mulcted with a higher liability than the amount stipulated in the 'bond', when there is default on the part of the dealer with regard to the tax liability under the K.G.S.T. Act. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is in no way connected with the business of the defaulter, who happens to be none other than the wife of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner stood as a surety for obtaining the registration certificate in the name of the wife/defaulter, executing Ext.P1 'bond' to an extent of Rs. Two lakhs. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that the wife of the petitioner turned to be a defaulter with regard to payment of tax to the State, pursuant to which, appropriate steps were taken against her, leading to issuance of W.P(C) No. 2649 OF 2007 2 Exts. P2 and P3 proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, demanding much more amount than the amount covered by Ext.P1 bond. This made the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, it was admitted also granting interim stay, however directing the petitioner to satisfy the defaulted liability of Rs. Two lakhs, which is stated as complied with. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the liability of the petitioner stands discharged, pursuant to the interim order, nothing more is liable to be paid by the petitioner. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. The question whether any amount more than the extent stipulated in the bond could be mulcted on the surety had come up for consideration before of this Court and as per the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Abdul Vahid vs. Dy. Tahsildar (2007(3) KLT 544), it was answered in the negative, making it clear that the liability as above has to be restricted to the 'bond amount' and nothing more. 6. In the above circumstance, it is declared that the W.P(C) No. 2649 OF 2007 3 petitioner is liable to pay only a sum of Rs. Two lakhs as undertaken in Ext.P1 'bond'. Since the said amount is stated as cleared pursuant to the interim order dated 23.01.2007, no further proceedings are liable to be pursued on the basis of Exts.P2 and P3. As such, Exts.P2 and P3 are set aside. It is also made clear that, this verdict will not stand in the way of the respondents in proceeding against the defaulter, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The Writ Petition is allowed to the said extent. No cost. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk