IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 9855 of 2005(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MRS.SANTHAMMA JACOB, PADINJARE PARAMBIL HOUSE, VAKATHANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN SRI.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAKATHANAM. BY SHRI.TEKCHAND, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.9855/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF RE-CONSTITUTION DEED DATED 12/05/1993. P2 : COPY OF CERTIFIED EXTRACT OF THE REGISTER OF FIRMS MAINTAINED BY THE AUTHORITY ISSUED TO PETITIONER ON 29/06/1993. P3 : COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DEEPIKA DAILY DATED 19/06/1993. P4 : COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16/03/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a) : COPY OF DEPOSITION. R1(b) : COPY OF SECURITY BOND EXECUTED BY PETITIONER. R1(c) : COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2000-01. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9855 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of sales tax due from a firm of which petitioner was a partner. According to petitioner, petitioner retired and partnership deed was reconstituted vide Ext.P1, during 1992-1993 itself and the liability sought to be recovered is for the year 2000-01. Learned counsel contended that petitioner has got the registration changed in the records of the office of Registrar of Firms and has also published the retirement. However, learned Government Pleader rightly pointed out that the procedure followed by petitioner is not sufficient compliance of Rule 5(8)(b) of the KGST Rules, by which petitioner is bound to furnish Form 3 intimating retirement to Assessing Officer. Even though petitioner had executed a bond for granting registration, petitioner has not informed the Assessing Officer about the retirement. I do not think petitioner can escape from recovery as petitioner continues to be a partner on record for want of filing of Form 3 under Rule 5(8)(b) of the KGST Rules. Moreover, since petitioner has executed a bond for rupees one lakh, petitioner is liable to pay off this amount. However, on equitable grounds, I WP(C) No.9855/2005 -2- direct 1st & 2nd respondent to proceed for recovery against the assets of other two partners of the firm. Petitioner will furnish addresses and available details of the assets of other partners for the respondents to proceed for recovery. However, if recovery is not effected for want of assets within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, then recovery can be made from petitioner, as petitioner failed to furnish intimation under Form 3 to the Assessing Officer. If petitioner makes payment and amount is recovered, petitioner can proceed for recovery against the other partners in terms of the partnership deed, retirement deed etc. Similarly, if petitioner so desires, petitioner can approach the Government for settlement under amnesty scheme and in that event also petitioner can proceed for recovery of the amount paid from the other partners subject to agreement with them. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg