IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23466 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.A.MOHAMMED, PROPRIETOR, BLUE MARINE BOTTLING CO., KASARAGOD, MADHUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO FINANCE, MINISTRY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-686 001. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, II, KASARAGOD - 671 181. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, KASARAGOD - 671 181. 4. THE TAHSIDLAR (RR), KASARAGOD-671 181. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MADHUR, KASARAGOD - 671 181. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.23466 of 2010-G ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against the revenue recovery steps initiated for realisation of arrears of sales tax, due for different periods. Contention of the petitioner is that the amount sought to be realised is not correct, since the respondents 2 and 3 had not given proper credit to payments of entry tax and input tax. 2. During pendency of the writ petition, Exts.P9 and P11 to P13 orders issued by the appellate authority disposing various appeals filed against orders of assessment as well the orders of penalty finalised with respect to different periods. It is evident from the said orders that the petitioner was given considerable reductions in the liability. However, the 2nd respondent has to give effect to those orders and to re-calculate the outstanding liability. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had remitted considerable amounts before the revenue recovery authorities, which need be given credit. 3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the W.P(C) No.23466 of 2010-G 2 view that before proceeding with further coercive steps of recovery, the 2nd respondent has to consider the matter and to make computation regarding the outstanding liability. It is necessary to issue revised requisition with respect to the balance, if any outstanding. 4. Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the matter and to finalise the liability after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A decision in this regard shall be taken as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. The petitioner will produce all the records in support of his claim regarding credit to be given with respect to various assessments. 6. Needless to say that the recovery steps now initiated pursuant to Ext.P6 notice shall be kept in abeyance, till a decision is taken and a fresh requisition is issued by the 2nd respondent as directed above. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab