IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 4310 of 2005(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MEHABOOB C.S., AGED 42, S/O. LATE SAIDU, CHEVANKUZHY, AZAD ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), MUKUNDAPURAM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA. 4. ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA. BY SMT.SMITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.4310/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 04/11/2004 ISSUED BY SECRETARY OF VEELOOKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. P2 : COPY OF MEDICAL RECORD DATED 30/08/2000 ISSUED BY DR.ANAND KUMAR OF AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES. P3 : COPY OF MEDICAL REPORT DATED 17/01/2004 OF AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES. P4 : COPY OF LETTER ISSUED TO R4 DATED 19/03/2003. P5 : COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 31/01/2005. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 4310 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. Even though petitioner's case is that business was carried on by M/s.Mass Electricals of which he was not a partner, learned Government Pleader submitted that petitioner's father, Mr.Saidu, was one of the partners and since he was ill, petitioner was carrying on the business. If petitioner had carried on business, then petitioner will have to pay tax as well. In any case, this Court directed petitioner to collect the orders and produce the same in this Court. So far petitioner has not collected or produced orders in this Court, even though order was issued on 07/02/2005. Petitioner cannot contest the liability without producing orders based on which recovery is initiated. This writ petition is, accordingly, closed leaving freedom to petitioner to challenge orders before statutory authority either in appeal or in revision. Recovery can be continued against the dealers and against the partners of the firm and if petitioner is found to have been carried on business, assessment should be first made against petitioner and then recovery should be made from petitioner. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg