High Court Kerala High Court

V. Baburaj vs The Sales Tax Officer on 28 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
V. Baburaj vs The Sales Tax Officer on 28 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2257 of 2008(R)


1. V. BABURAJ, S/O. LATE KUNJIKRISHNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.RAMADAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :28/01/2008

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                      ===============
                   W.P.(C) NO. 2257 OF 2008 R
                =====================

           Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008

                          J U D G M E N T

The case of the petitioner is that a firm of which he was a

partner was wound up in August 2004 and the sales tax

registration was also cancelled immediately thereafter. It is

stated that by Ext.P1 revenue recovery proceedings have been

initiated for realising the sales tax dues for the assessment year

2002-03. The complaint is that till date even a copy of the

assessment order has not been served on the petitioner.

2. In view of the submission made as above, learned

Government pleader was directed to obtain instructions in the

matter. On instructions, today, it is submitted before me that

assessment was completed on 8/12/2006 and that on 23/2/2007,

assessment order was sent to the firm by registered post and

that the same was returned unclaimed. Therefore learned

WPC 2257/08
:2 :

Government pleader submits that the Department cannot be

faulted for initiating revenue recovery action.

3. From the submissions made as above, what emerges

is that assessment has been completed and a copy has been sent

to the assessee in the address available with the respondents. If

it has been sent as stated and the same was returned unclaimed,

the Department cannot be faulted.

4. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner

is affected by the assessment stated to have been completed on

8/12/2006 and the consequential recovery action, I direct that on

the petitioner approaching the 1st respondent, 1st respondent shall

ensure that a copy of the assessment order is served on the

petitioner forthwith.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Rp