IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18777 of 2010(V)
1. A.P.SEBASTIAN, S/O.PAILY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CESS ASSESSING OFFICER
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :28/07/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No.18777 of 2010-V
----------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability
of Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent fixing the liability of
the petitioner under the Building and other Construction Worker’s
Welfare Cess Act, 1996. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ
Petition including that the construction was effected by the
petitioner in 1993, ie much before the enactment and hence that no
liability can be mulcted upon the shoulders of the petitioner. It is
also stated that, prior to issuance of Ext.P1, no proceeding
whatsoever was issued to the petitioner at any point of time and this
being the position, Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent is
liable to be interfered by this Court; submits the learned counsel.
2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submits, with reference to the statement filed on
2.7.2010, that the averments and allegations raised in the Writ
Petition are quite wrong and misconceived. It is asserted in the
statement that, before finalisation of the proceedings as per Ext.P5,
W.P(C) No.18777 of 2010-V 2
notice was issued to the petitioner by registered post. Copies of the
notices and postal acknowledgment card returned have been
produced before this Court as Annexure R1(a) to R1(e), along with
the statement. It is also pointed out that the petitioner, if at all
aggrieved, has a remedy as contemplated under the relevant
provisions of the statute and that the Writ Petition is not
maintainable under any circumstances.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
averments were raised with all sense of bonafides; but in view of the
specific averments contained in the statement preferred by the
respondents, the petitioner does not intend to proceed with the
matter any further, even by availing the statutory remedy. The
learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner may be
permitted to clear the entire liability by way of reasonable
instalments.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner
is permitted to clear the liability under Ext.P5 by way of ‘five’ equal
monthly instalements, at the rate of Rs.10,000/- each; the first of
which shall be effected on or before 30th of August, 2010; to be
W.P(C) No.18777 of 2010-V 3
followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 30th
of the succeeding months. The last instalment will be only for the
requisite amount, so as to top up the figure, to clear the remaining
liability. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being
pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for the time
being. It is however made clear that, if any default is committed by
the petitioner in clearing the liability as above, it will be open for the
respondents to proceed with the coercive steps for realisation of the
entire amount in a lump sum.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge
ab
W.P(C) No.18777 of 2010-V 4