IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 438 of 2008()
1. V.C.ALIKUNHI HAJI & SONS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
3. THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.),
For Petitioner :SRI.S.ABU BAKER KUNJU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :21/02/2008
O R D E R
H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W. A. NO. 438 OF 2008
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st February, 2008
JUDGMENT
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
Writ Petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed seeking a writ of
certiorari or direction to the second respondent to issue Certificates for admitting the
TA Nos.146/07, 147/07 and 148/07 by the third respondent and also to direct the
fourth respondent not to take coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to
Exts.P6 to P10 notices.
2. The assessments were completed under Section 17(D) of the KGST Act.
Appellant/petitioner preferred Appeals. But, the Appeals were not admitted for want
of Certificates from the Assistant Commissioner to prove payment of demanded tax
as per the assessment orders. The appellant was served with Exts.P6 to P10
demand notices. According to the appellant, huge amounts are due to the appellant.
The learned Single Judge found that it is not open to the appellant to maintain the
Appeals without making the demanded tax as contemplated under Section 17(D)(5)
of the KGST Act. The learned Judge took note of the Statement filed on behalf of
the respondents that they do not admit the contention of the appellant that money is
due for refund. It was also noticed that if the petitioner produces the documents,
the approximate excess amount of Rs.1,32,000/= might become due for refund. It
was found that the appellant has not produced documents in support of his claim,
nor has the Department quantified the amount to be refunded. In such
circumstances, the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It is clear that the
appellant is duty bound to remit the amounts for maintaining the Appeals. There is
WA NO.438/08 2
no exception. As far as the question of refund is concerned, the amount of refund is
not quantified and it is not open to the appellant to contend that as the amount is not
refunded, he is not liable to deposit the amounts necessary for maintaining the
Appeals. It is in such circumstances that Exts.P6 to P10 recovery notices were
issued pursuant to the assessment orders. No grounds are made out to entertain
this Writ Appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed.
H.L. DATTU,
CHIEF JUSTICE
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
kbk.