IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35493 of 2009(F)
1. THE TRAVANCORE RUBBER & TEA CO. LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.)
... Respondent
2. TAHSILDAR (RR) TRIVANDRUM.
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :04/01/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 35493 OF 2009
.........................................................................
Dated this the 4th January , 2010
J U D G M E N T
The grievance projected in the Writ Petition is mainly
against Ext. P1 seeking to realise ‘collection charges’ in respect
of realisation of the amount stated as due towards the tax
liability under the KGST and AIT Acts, invoking the provisions
under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
proceedings taken by the departmental authorities were
subjected to challenge by way of various proceedings and as and
when the matter was got finalised, the liability, as refixed was
cleared in toto; under which circumstance, no amount is liable to
be paid towards ‘collection charges’. Support is sought to be
drawn from the interim orders passed by this Court and also by
the statutory authorities, whereby the proceedings taken to the
contrary were intercepted so as to facilitate final adjudication in
W.P.(C) No. 35493 OF 2009
2
tune with the relevant provisions of law. The learned Counsel
also placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in
Malabar Organics Ltd. vs. State of Kerala [2009(4) KLT
328]. After formulating the relevant questions of law, the same
were answered by the Division Bench of this Court, holding that
there was no liability to pay the collection or service charges, in
case the defaulter paid the arrears directly to Institution,
pursuant only to a notice under Section 7 or S.34 of the Revenue
Recovery Act. It was categorically made clear that the liability
to pay such charges would arise only in cases where further
steps of attachment or sale are taken. However, taking note of
the rule position, as embodied under Rule 4, it was also observed
that in cases where the machinery under the Revenue Recovery
Act is made to run, the actual expense to the extent of 1% is
permitted to be realised in appropriate cases.
3. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P1 notice
issued by the respondents seeking to realise various amounts
as ‘collection charges’, ranging from 5% to 7.5% in respect of
different transactions and different periods is not correct or
W.P.(C) No. 35493 OF 2009
3
sustainable. Hence the same is hereby set aside.
4. The second respondent is directed to re-consider the
actual extent of liability in this regard, in tune with the law
declared by this Court as per the decision cited supra. The
proceedings in this regard shall be finalised as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within three months, of course, after giving
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No cost.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk