IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32049 of 2007(M) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RPG TRANSMISSION LIMITED, KARIYILAKULAM, EDAPALAYAM P.O, ARIYANKAVU, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST.MANAGER S.SOMAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM, PUNALUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.P. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 32049/2007-M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM DATED 24/01/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN STA 325 OF 2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/01/2007 OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN STA 328 OF 2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/02/2007 EXTENDING THE ORDER OF STAY 21/02/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 20/02/2007 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26/07/2007 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 31/07/2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12/10/2007 SUBMITTED TO EXT.P8. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 32049 of 2007 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 26th day of November , 2010 JUDGMENT The issue involved in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioner , who is an assessee under the KGST Act, could be mulcted with the liability of 'collection charges' to be paid to the Revenue, when the due amount is stated as satisfied, as demanded by the Sales Tax Authorities. 2. The petitioner was directed to satisfy various amounts in respect of the different assessment years 2002 - '03, 2003 - '04 and 2004 – '05, as covered by the relevant assessment order, which are under challenge in the statutory appeals preferred before the appellate authority. Interim orders were passed by the appellate authority directing to keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance, subject to the condition that, the petitioner/appellant satisfied 50 % of the disputed liability, which is stated as complied with. Since, the said amount was directly deposited by the petitioner voluntarily, there was no need, necessity or occasion for having initiated any recovery proceedings by the Revenue and as such, there is no rationale on the part of the respondents concerned in demanding the 'collection charges' vide Exts. P6 and P8, which hence are under challenge in this Writ Petition. W.P. (C) No. 32049 of 2007 : 2 : 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the interim orders passed by the appellate authority, 50 % of the due amount was ordered to be satisfied before a particular date and the petitioner has satisfied the said requirement very promptly and of course within the time limit. It is contended that, the last date fixed for satisfying the amount by the department was 24th February 2007, while the petitioner actually effected the payment of 20th February 2007. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue submits, on instruction, that, the revenue recovery notice was issued only on 15.03.2007, though a requisition was sent on 03.01.2007. As it stands so, before issuing the revenue recovery notice on 15.03.07, the petitioner had satisfied 50 % of the liability, as ordered, demanded by the Sales Tax Authority and this being the position, it cannot be said that the machinery under Revenue Recovery Act had already been set in motion, so as to sustain any demand for the 'collection charges' to be paid to the Revenue, at least to this extent of payment effected already. 5. In the above circumstances, this Court declares that demand made by the Revenue as per Ext. P6 and P8 is not correct or sustainable and hence they are hereby set aside. 6. It is stated that, the appeals preferred against the assessment orders are still pending and same are to be finalized by the appellate W.P. (C) No. 32049 of 2007 : 3 : authority, as expeditiously and possible. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the appellate authority, who is not a party to this writ petition forthwith. The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent, making it clear that this Court has not expressed anything with regard to the right of the Revenue or as to the liability of the petitioner to satisfy collection charges in respect of the remaining liability, which is the subject matter of the pending appeals. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd