T V ABDUL LAEF Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KASARGOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was a partner of one Asian Trading Company which was a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the Act ). The deep of partnership is dated January 15, 1976. PETITIONER states that he retired from the firm by the deed of retirement, exhibit P1 dated January 10, 1982, of which he again says, he informed the assessing authority by the letter exhibit P2 dated January 11, 1982. Subsequently proceedings were initiated for realisation of the arrears of sales tax due from the firm Asian Trading Company for the years 1982-83 to 1986-87 and the petitioner was proceeded against. He made a representation to the District Collector, Kasargode, who had initiated those proceedings to which the Collector replied by exhibit P3 dated September 28, 1989, stating that since the requisitioning department had requested him to collect the arrears, he cannot stop the proceedings and that the petitioner may approach the requisitioning authority for relief, if so desired. The petitioner thereupon moved the assessing authority by a representation, exhibit P4, requesting him to recall the revenue recovery proceedings against him. No reply was received thereto. The District Collector, Kasargode, proceeded with the revenue recovery proceedings and issued a notice, exhibit P5, under section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be arrested and detained in prison for recovery of the arrears of sales tax mentioned therein. PETITIONER submitted a reply, exhibit P6, dated November 6, 1989 which he says, remains undisposed of. A subsequent notice, exhibit P7, under section 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act was issued to him to which again he made a representation, exhibit P8, before the District Collector on January 9, 1990. PETITIONER's case is that exhibit P8 also remains undisposed of. Since the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act were going on he filed this original petition for relief.

(2.) PETITIONER's case is that he ceased to be a partner of the firm on January 10, 1982 of which he says, he sent intimation on January 11, 1982 as per exhibit P2. Whether this is true or not and whether that is sufficient to absolve the petitioner of the liability which is sought to be recovered from him, is not a matter on which this Court need concern itself at this stage for the reason that the representation which the petitioner filed before the assessing authority, namely, the 3rd respondent for relief against the recovery proceedings setting forth the above facts, remains undisposed of. The petitioner has already been informed by the District Collector in his proceedings, exhibit P3, that he should seek his relief before the requisitioning authority, who in this case happens to be the 3rd respondent. The further representations, exhibits P6 and P8, which the petitioner made before the District Collector are therefore futile ones and the petitioner has to seek his remedy before the 3rd respondent himself as suggested by the District Collector in exhibit P3.