High Court Kerala High Court

T.Vinod Kumar vs Ajith K.Marthandan on 9 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
T.Vinod Kumar vs Ajith K.Marthandan on 9 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 1894 of 2010(J)


1. T.VINOD KUMAR, TERA-8B, MALAVIKA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. AJITH K.MARTHANDAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DIJU RAMAKRISHNAN,

3. PREETHI AJITH, POORNIMA,

4. M/S.AISWARYA AGENCIES, LAKSHMI NADA,

5. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,

6. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

7. DY.TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)

8. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :09/02/2010

 O R D E R
                  C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                        P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
                  --------------------------------------------
                      W. P. C. No. 1894 OF 2010
                  --------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010

                               JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

The challenge is against recovery proceedings for recovery of

arrears of tax due from a firm of which petitioner was a partner.

Admittedly petitioner retired from the firm on 6.1.2006 and the firm

thereafter continued it’s business for 1-1/2 years. The tax liability

sought to be recovered relates partly to the period when petitioner was

a partner. The total liability sought to be recovered is something below

Rs. 3 lakhs. However, under interim orders of this Court, petitioner has

remitted Rs. 1 lakh. Since the firm continued after petitioner’s

retirement, obviously recovery could have been made from the

continuing partners. Government Pleader submitted that all the

partners are proceeded against for recovery. Even though liability of

the partners is joint and several, we feel on equitable ground recovery

against the petitioner can be withheld for some time to see whether

arrears could be recovered from continuing partners and if not possible

2

to proceed against the petitioner as well. This is because petitioner has

already remitted Rs. 1 lakh under interim orders and substantial amount

of liability is attributable to the period after petitioner retired from the

firm. In the circumstances, WPC is disposed of directing the recovery

authorities to withhold recovery proceedings against the petitioner for a

period of three months from now and to proceed for recovery against

other partners, and if balance arrears are recovered, to withdraw

recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Petitioner is free

to collect details of assets of other partners and to furnish the same to

the recovery authorities for proceeding with recovery. However, if

arrears could not be recovered from other partners, then recovery could

be continued against the petitioner and it is for the petitioner and other

partners to settle their liability under the Partnership Deeds through

separate proceedings.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.

(P.S. GOPINATHAN)
Judge.

kk