IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33582 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.J .JAYAS KALAPPURAYIL TRADERS, ADIMALI. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ADIMALI 2. DEPUTY THAHASILDAR (R.R.) DEVIKULAM 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, MANAMKANDOM VILLAGE ADIMALI. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 4. ROCKY V.JAMES, S/O.CHACKO, VATTAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, ADIMALI. (R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.15933/07 ON 4.12.07) ADV. SRI.RAJAN JOSEPH FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.P.I.DAVIS FOR ADDL.R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 33582 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of tax due from an assessee by name, “M/s.Vattakkuzhy Cardamom Traders”. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has nothing to do with the said assessee and the petitioner is running a business under the name and style of “Kalapurayil Traders”. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax in respect of M/s.Vattakkuzhy Cardamom Traders, who is the assessee in respect of whom revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Exhibit P1 and P2. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction, directing the first respondent to withdraw the recovery proceedings against the petitioner for the arrears of M/s.Vattakkuzhy Cardamom Traders for the year 1994-95, and exonerate him from recovery steps.” 2. The 4th respondent has got himself impleaded in this writ petition. In the affidavit accompanying the impleading petition, he would contend that the petitioner was one of the three partners of the assessee firm and as such, the petitioner is liable to pay 1/3th of the tax due. He would submit that this was recognised by the Department w.p.c.33582/07 - : 2 :- themselves in earlier proceedings. He would also point out that on the same question, in O.P.Nos.20259/2000 and 18728/2000, in which, the petitioner was a party, judgments have been rendered, which also would prove the said fact and this Court had, in those judgments directed to proceed against the petitioner also for recovery of the tax amounts due. 3. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, which would support the case of the 4th respondent as far as the liability of the petitioner is concerned. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The learned Government Pleader now submits that the assessee has paid off the entire arrears of tax due availing of benefits of the amnesty scheme declared by the Government and, therefore, respondents 1 to 3 have no more claim in respect of the amounts sought to be recovered. But the additional 4th respondent submits that his contention regarding the liability of the petitioner, as upheld by this Court in earlier judgments, should also be considered and if the petitioner is found liable, proportionate amount should be directed to be paid by the petitioner to the 4th respondent. I am of opinion that as far as respondents 1 to 3 are concerned, they have to recover the amounts from the assessee. The assessee has paid those amounts. That payment is not pursuant to any direction from this Court. That w.p.c.33582/07 - : 3 :- being so, I am not called upon to decide the inter-se dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent in this writ petition regarding apportionment of liability. Therefore, that question is left open to be agitated by the petitioner and the 4th respondent in appropriate other proceedings. Without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is closed, recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the amounts due from the assessee have already been paid by the assessee availing of the benefit of the amnesty scheme. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge