CITY JEWELLERY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CITY Jewellery was a firm of jewelers carrying on business in Thrissur Town in the years 1972-73 and 1973-74. It consisted of two partners, P. N. Vasudevan and one C. P. Anto, who died on 24-10-1974. The business was continued thereafter by P. N. Vasudevan as a sole proprietory, when on 1-4-1986, he converted it into a firm along with frisson P. V. Suresh, who was inducted as a partner. The said Suresh is the managing Partner of the firm. This new firm of Vasudevan and Suresh was registered as a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the Act for short) on 1-4-1986 and is doing its business in Thrissur in the same name and style of CITY Jewellery.

(2.) THE erstwhile firm of Vasudevan and Anto owed a substantial amount of Rs. 275345-70 by way of sales tax, surcharge and penal interest for the two years 1972-73 and 1973-74, the payment of which had been defaulted. THE assessing authority therefore initiated proceedings for recovery of the amount under S. 23 (2) of the Act and the Revenue Divisional Officer, thrissur issued notice calling upon City Jewellery to make payment of the amount due. THE amount not having been paid, the jewellery items in the shop, city Jewellery were attached and taken away on 23-9-1986, and posted for sale on 13-6-1989. P. V. Suresh, the Managing Partner of the new firm, City Jewellery, objected to the attachment before the Revenue Divisional Officer, a copy of the objection being Ext. P4, with a request that the items attached and removed may be released to him. No formal order appears to have been passed thereon. It was nevertheless that the items were proclaimed for sale on 13-6-1989, whereupon the petitioner filed this original petition for quashing the proceedings leading to the seizure of the jewellery items, and for a direction to the respondents to return the same to it.

(3.) THE liability of Vasudevan for the arrears of tax of the old firm of City Jewellery cannot be disputed, in the light of S. 21 A of the Act. THE only question is whether the modus operandi adopted for the realisation of the dues, by seizure and removal of the movables of the new firm is legally punishable.