IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13741 of 2009(K)
1. P.T.DAVIS,
... Petitioner
2. P.T.VARGHESE,
3. P.T.JOHNSON,
4. P.T.BENNY,
5. P.T.JOSE,
Vs
1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSMT-I),
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,(REVENUE RECOVERY),
3. THOMSON POULTY FARM,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SRIKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :25/05/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
........................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 13741 OF 2009
.........................................................................
Dated this the 25th May, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Challenging the assessment order for the year 1999-2000
passed by the assessing authority, the petitioner preferred first
appeal before the concerned authority which did not give any
positive result, whereby the petitioner filed second appeal before
the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Palakkad . After considering
the facts and figures, the 1st appellate authority as per the
common order dated 03.01.2009 modified the assessment order
allowing the appeal in part, which led to Ext.P8 revised
assessment order dated 21.02.2009 produced along with I.A.No.
5875 of 2009. As per the modified assessment order, the tax
liability fixed on the petitioner was reduced as Rs.58,51,826/-,
whereas the petitioner, vide Ext. P6 had already furnished the
Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs. 1,60,00,000/-, as directed by
the Tribunal earlier vide Ext.P5 order.
W.P.(C) No. 13741 OF 2009
2
2. The prayer of the petitioner is to lift the attachment in
view of modified extent of liability, as borne by Ext.P8 and of
course, in the light of of Ext. P6 Bank Guarantee, which is valid
for a period of one year from 08.04.2009.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. The
learned Government Pleader submits that the matter has to be
verified as to whether any other attachment or liability is in
existence before lifting the attachment. The proposition does not
appear to be palatable at all, particularly in view of Ext. P7 letter
dated 20.04.2009 issued by the requisitioning authority
addressed to the concerned Tahsildar, wherein satisfaction of the
due amount has been reported and informed that the revenue
recovery proceedings initiated against the defaulter could be
withdrawn.
In the above facts and circumstances, there will be a
direction to the second respondent to take all necessary steps to
lift the attachment over the concerned property and final orders
shall be passed in this regard, as early as possible and at any
W.P.(C) No. 13741 OF 2009
3
rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of the judgment.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk
The figure “Rs. 58,51,826/-” appearing in the 11th line of the first
paragraph of judgment dated 25/05/2009 in WP(C)NO.13741/2009 is
corrected as “Rs.1,58,51,826/-” as per order dated 16/06/2009 in
I.A.No. 6945/2009 in WP(C)NO.13741/2009.
Sd/- Registrar (Judicial).