R. Ajith Kumar. Vs. State of KeralA.

R. Ajith Kumar. vs State of KeralA.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 26, 2010

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/912547

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/912547
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
Decided On: Nov 26, 2010
Case Number: WP(C).No. 24120 of 2004(U)
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Section 100: [B.N. Agrawal & G.S. Singhvi, JJ] Second appeal - Substantial question of law Held, It is well settled that, in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., if the High Court is of the opinion that a substantial question of law arises, then such question of law is required to be framed and decide...

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Kerala Revenue Recovery Act; Kerala General Sales Tax Act - Section 29(A)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

R. Ajith Kumar.

Advocate SRI.P.SANJAY, Adv.

Respondent

State of KeralA.

Legal References

Acts: Kerala Revenue Recovery Act; Kerala General Sales Tax Act - Section 29(A)

Excerpt

section 100: [b.n. agrawal & g.s. singhvi, jj] second appeal - substantial question of law held, it is well settled that, in a second appeal filed under section 100 of c.p.c., if the high court is of the opinion that a substantial question of law arises, then such question of law is required to be framed and decided. if no substantial question of law was found to arise in the appeal, high court would have no option but to dismiss the same. .....defaulter/4th respondent company. the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that though the present petitioner was included in the party array as 5th respondent in the aforesaid writ petition, he did not get any opportunity to submit the facts and figures in view of the fact that the said matter was disposed of at the admission stage itself. 4. heard the learned government pleader as well. 5. when the matter was admitted on 13.08.2004, the coercive proceedings were intercepted. the said interim order was subsequently extended on 01.02.2005 observing as follows: "there will be a direction to the second respondent to withhold whatever balance is outstanding in the account of the fourth respondent company and give a statement to the petitioner about the balance outstanding in the account of the 4th respondent on production of a copy of this order for the petitioner to produce in this court. stay extended by one month. " 6. subsequent developments are not discernible from the materials on record, obviously for the reason that the respondents 1 to 3 have not filed any counter affidavit or statement as to the turn of events and this court is not in a position to understand whether the entire liability or at least a portion of the liability is realised from the 4th respondent particularly in view of the direction given to the concerned respondent to withhold the balance amount outstanding in the account of the 4th respondent . 7. the learned government pleader however submits with reference to the instruction received that the petitioner had executed a bond while causing the materials to be released undertaking that the liability if at all any would be satisfied by he petitioner. since no copy of the said bond is available before this court and since no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, this court is not in a position to appreciate the merits of the case involved. however, taking note of the fact that the persons similarly situated like the.....

Full Judgment

1. The writ petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers;'

"i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P1;

ii. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing ext.P1;

iii. To issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ restraining the 6th respondent from proceeding against the petitioner and his assets under the Revenue Recovery Act. iv. Direct the respondents to first forfeit Ext.P3 and to proceed against the assets of the 4th respondent for the liability disclosed in Ext.P1 v. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount shown in Ext.P1. AND

vi. To pass any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

2. The sequence of events as narrated in the Writ Petition shows that the petitioner was working as Branch Manager of the 4th respondent Company dealing with some electronic items. When some electronic items were being transported in a truck it was intercepted on the way issuing notice under Section 29(A) of the KGST Act doubting evasion of tax referring to certain incriminating circumstances and thus demanding security deposit . It is stated that the petitioner as the Manager of the said company along with two other persons executed a bond so as to release the goods as well as the vehicle. It is also revealed that subsequent to the above steps, adjudication proceedings were finalised and the 4th respondent was imposed with a penalty, which was not satisfied, under which circumstance, the departmental authorities proceeded against the concerned persons who executed the bond including the petitioner.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent company is not in existence now and that the petitioner has lost his job, who was working only as a paid employee of the company and that there was no personal liability under any circumstance. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that under similar circumstance, one of the sureties to the security bond had already approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) 6748 of 2004, which culminated in Ext.P2 judgment whereby the petitioner therein was permitted to take up the matter before the second respondent therein, however making it clear that the concerned respondent could very well proceed against the defaulter/4th respondent Company. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that though the present petitioner was included in the party array as 5th respondent in the aforesaid Writ Petition, he did not get any opportunity to submit the facts and figures in view of the fact that the said matter was disposed of at the admission stage itself.

4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

5. When the matter was admitted on 13.08.2004, the coercive proceedings were intercepted. The said interim order was subsequently extended on 01.02.2005 observing as follows:

"There will be a direction to the second respondent to withhold whatever balance is outstanding in the account of the fourth respondent company and give a statement to the petitioner about the balance outstanding in the account of the 4th respondent on production of a copy of this order for the petitioner to produce in this Court. Stay extended by one month. "

6. Subsequent developments are not discernible from the materials on record, obviously for the reason that the respondents 1 to 3 have not filed any counter affidavit or statement as to the turn of events and this Court is not in a position to understand whether the entire liability or at least a portion of the liability is realised from the 4th respondent particularly in view of the direction given to the concerned respondent to withhold the balance amount outstanding in the account of the 4th respondent .

7. The learned Government Pleader however submits with reference to the instruction received that the petitioner had executed a bond while causing the materials to be released undertaking that the liability if at all any would be satisfied by he petitioner. Since no copy of the said bond is available before this Court and since no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, this Court is not in a position to appreciate the merits of the case involved. However, taking note of the fact that the persons similarly situated like the petitioner have already been given the benefit to the extent as provided in Ext.P2, this Court finds it fit and proper to take a similar view.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file detailed objection, if any, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment before the second respondent, on which event, the matter shall be caused to be considered and finalised by the said respondent, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. Coercive proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance till such time.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2010 Same Parties R. Ajith Kumar. vs State of KeralA. Same Subject Civil Same Judge P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. Acts & Sections Kerala Revenue Recovery Act; Kerala General Sales Tax Act - S...

Civil