IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 624 of 2006(Y) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.REMADEVI, W/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, KUTTIKKATT HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O. THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KEALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THODUPUZHA. 3. T.N.SANAL KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, THAIKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O. THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.624/2006-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER DEMANDING RS.44,259/- AS SALE TAX LIABILITY OF R.3. FOR THE YEAR 2000-2001 DTD. 28/12/2005. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER DEMANDING RS.63,966/- AS SALES TAX LIABILITY OF R.3. FOR THE YEAR 2001-2002 DTD. 28/12/2005. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 05/01/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C)No. 624 OF 2006 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th November , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Exts. P1 and P2 notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act in connection with the steps to realise the amount stated as due from the 3rd respondent, who, according to the petitioner is the actual defaulter. The prayers sought for in the Writ Petition are the following: “i) quash Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2 as illegal; ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext. P3 and stop all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 and P2; iii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to proceed against the 3rd respondent for his sales tax liability if any, iv) issue such other writ order or direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case”. W.P.(C)No. 624 OF 2006 2 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this court on 11.01.2006, the matter was admitted also granting interim stay on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of `25,000/- within three weeks, which period was subsequently extended, as per the order dated 07.03.2006 in I.A.No. 2805 of 2006, making it clear that enlargement of time will be as last chance. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. The fact that the petitioner stood as surety for obtaining the sales tax registration to the third respondent stands conceded. The only case projected by the petitioner is that the respondents may proceed against the assets of the third respondent in connection with the sales tax arrears before proceeding against the petitioner. This Court finds it difficult to accept the said proposition as liability of the defaulter as well as the surety is joint and several. In the said circumstance, this Court finds that there is no ground to call for any interference with regard to the steps being pursued for realisation of the amount stated as due. However, it is made clear that any such W.P.(C)No. 624 OF 2006 3 steps to be pursued against the petitioner can only be to the extent to which the petitioner has agreed to while standing as surety. In other words, respondents will be justified in proceeding against the petitioner only to the extent as shown in the 'bond' executed in Form 6A of the relevant rules . It is also to be ascertained whether the petitioner has satisfied the amount of `25,000/- pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court as mentioned herein before . If the entire liability under the bond stands discharged already, no further proceedings shall be pursued against the petitioner. Otherwise, such proceedings will stand confined to the above extent or to meet the deficit, if any in this regard. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk