IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29693 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.RAJAN, VATTEKKAT HOUSE, VIYYUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SRI.K.UMA MAHESWAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DY.TAHSILDAR (R.R.) THRISSUR-680 020. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VAT CIRCLE-1, THRISSUR-680 003. 3. STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, O/O.COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1, THRISSUR-680 003. BY SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN R3 BY SRI.M.AJAY, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 29693 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Admittedly, the petitioner was a partner of the firm M/s. Laxmi Jewellers, Palace Rod, Thrissur. Recovery steps are initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P2 series notices. It is evident that the amount sought to be recovered pertains to assessments completed against the said firm, for the years 2002-'03, 2003-04 and 2004-'05. Contention of the petitioner is that he had retired from the partnership at the end of the year 2004 and he was away from Kerala in connection with treatment of his wife. It is the case of the petitioner that he has not been served with any notices or orders of assessment. It is submitted that on receipt of Ext.P2 series notices the petitioner submitted a request as per Ext.P3, under the Right to Information Act for getting copies of the assessment orders. Grievance of the petitioner is that coercive steps of recovery are now being threatened, even without issuing such copies. W.P.(C) No. 29693/2010 2 2. On a perusal of Ext.P2 series it is evident that revenue recovery proceedings were initiated for realizing the amounts due from the firm and the notices are issued against three persons, who are obviously partners of the firm. If the petitioner is aggrieved by such assessment, he has to seek appropriate statutory remedies after obtaining certified copies of the assessments. Needless to say that if the petitioner makes proper application for getting certified copies of the assessment, the 2nd respondent should furnish such copies, without any further delay. 3. If the petitioner has a case that he is not liable for arrears due from the firm, by virtue of his retirement, it is for him to raise such objections before the appropriate authority under the Revenue Recovery Act. At any rate, challenge against the recovery steps could not be entertained in this writ petition. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent for getting certified copy and to invoke W.P.(C) No. 29693/2010 3 appellate remedy, if available under law. It is left open to the petitioner to raise objections regarding the liability, by taking appropriate steps before the revenue recovery authorities. 5. In order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned, coercive steps of recovery pursuant to Ext.P2 series notices, initiated against movables and immovables belonging to the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. It is made clear that this will not prevent the respondents from proceeding against any assets of the firm or other partners. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.