IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9859 of 2009(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. CABLE TV OPERATORS DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH SOCIETY R.NO.313,ANTHIKKAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,SASI. 2. C.N.SASI, S/O.NARAYANAN,AGED 45 YEARS, CHARAMBATH HOUSE, PAZHUVIL.PO,M THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,KSEB, ELECTRICAL DIVISION,KODUNGALLUR. 3. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,NEW DELHI. R1, R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN. R3 BY STANDIN COUNSEL SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL ADV. SRI.TOJAN VATTUKULAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 9859 of 2009-B ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 31st day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T First petitioner is an association of Cable TV Operators in Thrissur District and the 2nd petitioner is a cable TV operator. By Ext.P1 letter they have been informed that they have to submit bank guarantee at the rate of 10% of the total pole rental payable along with the renewal fee. Petitioners filed Ext.P2 representation . 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board and also learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent. The demand for bank guarantee is on the basis that the Board may have to pay service tax and the Board would have right to get the amount from the Cable TV operators. Of course, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that cable operation invites tax. The demand is for execution of bank guarantee. There can be no doubt that if the Board is liable to pay service tax it has a right to pass it on. If that be so, before entering into a fresh WPC No.9859/2009 -2- contract or providing for renewal of the existing contract it has every right to protect its legitimate interest in securing by a contract the right to reimburse and the right to pass it on. Of course, the liability of the petitioner arise only up on the Board being liable and the Board paying the amount. In such circumstances, I see no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Needless to say, the bank guarantee can be invoked only if the Board is liable to pay the tax . (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS