IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 8728 of 2005(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SIBY ALEXANDER, VAZHUTHINAPPILLIL HOUSE, KURUVILANGADU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL SALE TAX OFFICER-I, 2ND CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, MEENACHIL, PALA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KURUVILANGADU, MEENACHIL PALA. R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SUDHISH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8728 of 2005(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.1 DT.4.3.2005 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO. 10 DT.4.3.2005 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 2055/2004 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT.23.7.2004 EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER GRANTED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 2.2.2005 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// jma K.Vinod Chandran, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8728 of 2005-L ---------------------------------------- Dated this, the 21st day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner in the above writ petition contends that he was a Director of a company, by name “Cochin Chemicals and Refineries Ltd.” and that the Company had been running in a good manner and the 1st respondent had imposed a penalty of Rs.1,98,970/- which, the petitioner claims, was not known to the Company or its Directors. The petitioner though has made a statement that he has no connection with the Company does not anywhere plead that he is no more a Director of the Company. In any event, the learned Government Pleader submits that it is not a penalty that was imposed on the petitioner, but the demand made as per Exhibits P1 and P2 was on the basis of a revenue recovery proceeding initiated pursuant to the final assessment made for the assessment year 2000-2001. It is also submitted that the petitioner was given notice of the same and after seeking time for production of the books of accounts, the petitioner had not turned up and hence the assessment was completed. The petitioner relies on Exhibit P3 judgment and Exhibit P4 interim order to contend that the assets of the petitioner cannot be proceeded against, unless the assets of the Company are proceeded with. However, it is not clear as to whether the very same Company's dues were proceeded against and challenged in the proceedings evidenced by Exhibits P3 and P4. W.P.(C).No.8728 of 2005-L - 2 - 2. The petitioner, at the time of filing of the writ petition, was granted an interim order of stay by this Court, which was later modified by order dated 8.6.2005 directing the petitioner to deposit rupees fifty thousand within three weeks from the date of the interim order and on such condition, extended the stay for two months. The petitioner has not complied with the interim order and by order dated 27.1.2006, it has been declared by another learned Single Judge that since there has not been any deposit, consequently there will be no stay. 3. In the circumstances, I am afraid, this Court cannot exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in granting any equitable relief to the petitioner. However, it goes without saying, the petitioner will be able to raise the contentions on Section 26C of the KGST Act as also the liability of the petitioner with respect to the dues of the Company before the 1st respondent. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. K.Vinod Chandran, Judge. vku/-