IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37932 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HOTEL MAYOORA, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.JOSE KURUVINAKUNNEL. BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I, IST CIRCLE, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. COLLECTOR/AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR-680 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.37932 of 2010-N ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was running a bar hotel which was forced to be closed down due to surrender of the building pursuant to an order passed by this Court in a revision filed by the landlord of the building, under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. According to the petitioner, the closure of business with effect from 13.10.2010 was duly intimated to the assessing authority through Ext.P2. Ext.P3 notice was issued to the petitioner requesting to remit the compounded tax due with respect to the month of October 2010, on the allegation that, along with the monthly return filed the petitioner has not remitted the full amount of compounded tax due for the month of October 2010, for payment of which the petitioner has opted under Section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act) with respect to the year 2010-2011. 2. On receipt of Ext.P3, the petitioner submitted W.P(C) No.37932 of 2010-N 2 Ext.P4 objection denying the liability, mainly contending that going by Section 5, the liability will arise only if there is any turnover for the sale of foreign liquor. It is pointed out that due to shifting of the premise with effect from 13.10.2010 there was no business and there was no turnover with respect to sale of foreign liquor. Therefore he requested the authority to reconsider the demand. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the objections raised, recovery steps were initiated and Ext.P5 demand notice was issued for realising the amount of compounding tax. Contention of the petitioner is that, the recovery steps initiated without considering the objections and without affording him an opportunity of hearing is unreasonable and arbitrary, and is violative of principles of natural justice. 4. Heard; learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any remission since the compounding is for the whole year and despite any W.P(C) No.37932 of 2010-N 3 stoppage of business the petitioner is liable for payment of amount under the compounded rate for the entire financial year. 5. However, considering the fact that before initiating recovery steps, the assessing authority has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner, I am not proposing to enter upon any adjudication regarding merits of the demand raised, or regarding merits of the contentions of the petitioner in refuting the liability. I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 objection and to take a decision, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the basis of Exts.P3 and P4, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. It is made clear that all the contentions raised by W.P(C) No.37932 of 2010-N 4 the petitioner are left open for agitation and that he is entitled to raise further contentions if any available. 8. Till such time the 1st respondent takes a decision and communicate the same to the petitioner, recovery of amount which is initiated on the basis of Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab