IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23200 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KATHAYEE COTTON MILLS LIMITED, 24, PERUMBAVOOR ROAD, ALUVA-31, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, V.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 64 YEARS, UTHRALAYAM, S.N.ROAD, ELAMAKKARA P.O. BY ADV. MR.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA. ADV. MR. P. NARAYANAN – GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.23200 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act. They own certain properties, in respect of which they want to pay basic tax. The same is not being accepted by the second respondent, is the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following relief: “a) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to collect the land tax in respect of the property of the petitioner in Aluva Village and to issue receipt to him” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that several liabilities are pending to be enforced against the petitioner and to protect the creditors as well as the public that the tax is not being accepted, in so far as it is likely that the petitioner may use the tax receipt for other purposes, which may prejudice the rights of the creditors of the Company. W.P.(c)No.23200/10 2 3. I have already held in the decision in Anwar.M.Easa v. District Collector [2010(1) KLT 747] that the subsistence of attachments in respect of a property is not a reason for refusing to accept the tax in respect of that property. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner is indebted to others and the property is subject to change for the same, is no ground to refuse to accept tax from the petitioner in respect of the property. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to accept basic tax in respect of the property in question from the petitioner and issue tax receipt to the petitioner. However, it would be open to the second respondent to endorse in the tax receipt that the property is subject to liabilities. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.23200/10 3 W.P.(c)No.23200/10 4