IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22923 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- J.K.MARATTUKULAM, RETIRED PARTNER, RUBY FOAM, TANAH, MAMPAD, C/O.RUBY ESTATE, TANAH, MAMPAD.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 329. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 329. BY G.P. SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.10.2007 EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.1.2008 EXT.P3- DO. DO. DATED 10.1.2008 EXT.P4- DO DO. DATED 18.9.2007 EXT.P5-DO. DO. DATED 10.1.2008 EXT.P6- DO. DO. DATED 22.8.2007 EXT.P7- DO. DO. DATED 22.8.2007 EXT.P8- DO. DO. DATED 22.8.2007 EXT.P9- DO. DO. DATED 22.8.2007 EXT.P10- DO. DO. DATED 22.8.2007 EXT.P11- DO. DO. DATED 20.2.2010 EXT.P12- DO. DO. DATED 27.2.2010 EXT.P13- DO. DO. DATED 27.7.2011 EXT.P14- DO. DO. DATED 6.8.2011 EXT.P15-TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION SRO 695/2003 EXT.P16- DO. SRO 316/2005 EXT.P17- DO. SRO 123/2010 // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 22923 of 2011-M - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the retired partner of M/s. Ruby Foam, Tanah, Mampad. It is averred in the writ petition that he retired from the partnership firm on 9.7.2007. The challenge is against the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents for realisation of Central Sales Tax for the period 2005-2006. 2. Ext.P13 is the notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act showing a balance amount of Rs.8,13,525/- as on 5.9.2010. The contention raised by the petitioner is that excess amounts have been collected under the K.G.S.T. Act and therefore, the same can be adjusted against the liability. Seeking for the same benefit, the petitioner has filed Ext.P14 representation before the first respondent. 3. Heard learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in S.T.Rev. No.138/2009 in support of his contention. 5. Learned Govt. Pleader submitted that normally the petitioner will wpc 22923/2011 2 not be entitled for a refund. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in such cases, going by the dictum laid down by the Division Bench in the above judgment, adjustment can be made towards Central Sales Tax dues. 6. The above issue will be considered by the first respondent after hearing the petitioner, in the light of the judgment of this Court in S.T.Rev. No.138/2009. An appropriate decision will be taken after hearing the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, the revenue recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance. The other legal contentions are left open. 7. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. The petitioner will forward a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for compliance. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/