IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 438 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3111/2008 Dated 14/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- V.C.ALIKUNHI HAJI & SONS, P.O.ELATHOOR, KOZHIKODE, THIS FIRM IS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER P.P.ABDUL KHADER, S/O. V.C.ALIKUNHI HAJI, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAYIL, ELATHOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABU BAKER KUNJU RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KOZHIKODE. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------------------- W. A. NO. 438 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st February, 2008 JUDGMENT K. M. JOSEPH, J. Writ Petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed seeking a writ of certiorari or direction to the second respondent to issue Certificates for admitting the TA Nos.146/07, 147/07 and 148/07 by the third respondent and also to direct the fourth respondent not to take coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to Exts.P6 to P10 notices. 2. The assessments were completed under Section 17(D) of the KGST Act. Appellant/petitioner preferred Appeals. But, the Appeals were not admitted for want of Certificates from the Assistant Commissioner to prove payment of demanded tax as per the assessment orders. The appellant was served with Exts.P6 to P10 demand notices. According to the appellant, huge amounts are due to the appellant. The learned Single Judge found that it is not open to the appellant to maintain the Appeals without making the demanded tax as contemplated under Section 17(D)(5) of the KGST Act. The learned Judge took note of the Statement filed on behalf of the respondents that they do not admit the contention of the appellant that money is due for refund. It was also noticed that if the petitioner produces the documents, the approximate excess amount of Rs.1,32,000/= might become due for refund. It was found that the appellant has not produced documents in support of his claim, nor has the Department quantified the amount to be refunded. In such circumstances, the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It is clear that the appellant is duty bound to remit the amounts for maintaining the Appeals. There is WA NO.438/08 2 no exception. As far as the question of refund is concerned, the amount of refund is not quantified and it is not open to the appellant to contend that as the amount is not refunded, he is not liable to deposit the amounts necessary for maintaining the Appeals. It is in such circumstances that Exts.P6 to P10 recovery notices were issued pursuant to the assessment orders. No grounds are made out to entertain this Writ Appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.