IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30702 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CANNANORE COUNTY CLUB & RESORTS PVT.LTD KANNUR,HAVING TRADE NAME AS KAIRALI HERITAGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,R.ANANTHAKRISHNAN. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IST CIRCLE,KANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.30702 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the coercive steps of recovery initiated against them for realisation of turnover tax due. Ext.P1 is the demand notice issued with respect to payment of turnover tax due for June and July 2009. The total amount demanded therein is Rs.4,39,920/-. On receipt of Ext.P1 notice the petitioner submitted a request as evidenced from Ext.P2 before the respondent, seeking permission for payment of the amounts in 5 monthly installments @ Rs.80,000/-, commencing from 30.10.2009 onwards. It is submitted that Ext.P2 request is made under the provisions of Rule 30B of the KGST Rules. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering and disposing of Ext.P2 request, coercive steps are now initiated and prohibitory orders as evidenced from Ext.P3 was issued to the Bank wherein the petitioner is holding an account. 2. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that Ext.P3 prohibitory order is issued as early as on 15.10.2009 and Ext.P2 request is made only after that, on 22.10.2009. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no amount has W.P.(C).30702/09-G 2 been recovered pursuant to Ext.P3 from the Bank account. 3. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case and contentions on both sides, I am of the opinion that the the request submitted by the petitioner for availing installment facility is allowable as per the statute, under Rule 30B of the KGST Rules. Hence I am of the opinion that the limited prayer of the petitioner for permitting installment payment can be allowed. 4. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make payment of the amount demanded under Ext.P1 in 5 (five) equal monthly installments starting on or before 31.12.2009 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. It is made clear that on payment of the 1st installment the respondent shall withdraw the prohibitory order issued as per Ext.P3. 5. It is further made clear that on the event of making default in payment of any of the installments, the respondent will be free to take further coercive steps permissible under law. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb