IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15266 of 2007(P) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K. SREEKUMAR, S/O.K.R.KUTTAPPA PANICKER, AGED 48 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S.JACOB ENTERPRISES, `ANUGRAHAM', SATELLITE TOWNSHIP, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-30. BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY SRI.GEORGE K.THEKKEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) KANAYANNOOR. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA. SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH - GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1TO3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15266 of 2007(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1; COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DTD 23.3.2004 UNDE SEC.7 OF THE RR ACT ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD 8.9.2006 ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3; COPY OF MAHAZAR DTD 18.2.2005 PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER VAZHAKKALA ATTACHING MOVABLES OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DTD 21/12/2006 PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER VAZHAKKALA ATTACHING MOVABLES OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF A REPRESENTATION DTD 29.9.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S WIFE TO R1. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD 6/3/2007 UNDER SECTION 65 OF THE R.R. ACT. EXT.P7: COPY OF A DETAILE REPLY DATED 21.3.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO R1. EXT.P8: COPY OF ORDER DTD 7.5.2007 PASSED BY R1 AGAINST THE PETITIONER U/S 65 OF THE K.R.R.ACT. EXT.P9: COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15266 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices were issued to the petitioner demanding tax and penalty amounting to Rs.30,84,231/- plus interest and costs. The petitioner paid Rs.4 lakhs. He filed a revision before the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Thiruvananthapruam against the demand, which, according to the petitioner, was pending at the time of filing of the writ petition. But, the respondents initiated recovery proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Movables from the petitioner's rented house were attached and sold. Again, the 1st respondent ordered arrest and detention of the petitioner in the civil prison for recovery of the amount. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Order issued by the 1st Respondent pursuant to W.P.(C)No.15266/07 2 Ext.P6 authorising the arrest and detention of the petitioner in Civil prison under Sec.65 of Revenue Recovery Act; ii) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st Respondent to dispose off Exts.P6 and P7 on merits after hearing the petitioner and communicate the Order thereof to the Petitioner”. 2. This Court, while admitting this writ petition, issued an interim order granting stay on condition that the petitioner pays some amount. Those amounts have been paid and the interim order has been extended until further orders. 3. Today, the petitioner produces Ext-P9 along with I.A.No.9216/2011 which would show that the assessment order, pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices have been issued, which culminated in the warrant of arrest, has been set aside and the matter, was remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration. If that be so, the demand notices cannot now be enforced. Consequently the warrant of arrest also cannot be enforced. Accordingly, Ext.P6 notice is declared as unenforceable. The petitioner has produced Ext.P8 order pursuant to the show cause notice. Sine I have quashed Ext.P6, consequently, the dependant order Ext.P8 would also stand quashed. However, this would not stand in the way of respondents taking fresh steps for recovery as and when fresh W.P.(C)No.15266/07 3 demand notices are issued. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.15266/07 4