IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 1140 of 2006(V) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16987/2005 Dated 24/08/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS --------------------------- 1. K.R.GEORGE, KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, PULLAZHY, TRICHUR. 2. K.S.JOSE, KANICHAYI HOUSE, P.O.PALAYAMPARAMBU. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SMT.S.AMINA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, THRISSUR. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PULLAZHY VILLAGE, OLERIKKARA, THRISSUR. 4. THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER, IIIRD CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 5. M/S.INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION, R.S.ROAD, THRISSUR. 6. M/S.GENERAL ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CO. PVT. LTD., KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.No.1140 of 2006 in W.P.(C) No.16987 of 2005 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th August, 2009 O R D E R The Original Petition was filed challenging the revenue recovery proceedings. The same was disposed of, by judgment dated 24.8.2006, directing the authorities to consider Ext.P6, after hearing the petitioner and to dispose of the same, in accordance with law. This review petition is filed submitting that the first petitioner is not in arrears of any sales tax and he is not a partner or anybody connected with the assets of the firm/company. Since the certificate of payment was issued by the sales tax officer against the first petitioner also, he has preferred Ext.P5 representation, but the same has not been disposed of. Thus, the contention as to whether he could be liable to be proceeded against for recovery of any amount due and payable by the firm/company is yet not adjudicated. 2. It is submitted that now the post of Sales Tax Officer has been re-designated as Commercial tax Officer. RP.No.1140 of 2006 2 Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Commercial Tax Officer or to whom the file is made over to hear and dispose of Ext.P5 representation filed by the first petitioner. Till then, the proceedings initiated against the first petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act will stand stayed. The order shall be communicated to the Revenue Recovery authorities for enabling them to take further proceedings in the matter. 3. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the Commercial Tax Officer, whereupon, either the Commercial Tax Officer may hear petitioner or intimate him of the next posting date of hearing, and dispose of the same, in accordance with law. The review petition is allowed to the above extent. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.