J. RAJMOHAN PILLAI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the 1st respondent by which it is confirmed that revenue recovery proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner.

(2.) The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner, while he was a minor was inducted as a partner of the firm M/s.Malabar Cashew and Allied Products with effect from 01/01/1975. The partnership was reconstituted on 01/01/1976 by which the petitioner and three other minors were excluded from the partnership. The firm was liable to pay sales tax dues and accordingly, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent proceeded on the basis that the petitioner, being a partner, was also liable for the arrears of sales tax dues and accordingly, steps were taken against the petitioner under Section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner of Land Revenue which was rejected as per order dated 03/05/2002. Further revision was filed before the Government which was disposed of as per Ext.P2(b) order, by directing the District Collector to make an enquiry as to who were partners of the firm during the above period when arrears were due to the Government and to take necessary action in the matter. The District Collector passed Ext.P3 order dated 24/04/2008, by which the matter was referred to the assessing authority to take a final decision regarding the retirement of the petitioner from the firm and whether he was a major or minor at the time of retirement. Petitioner challenged Ext.P3 order by filing W.P.C.No.19555/2009 before this Court. This Court, by judgment dated 19/03/2012, directed the 1st respondent to finalize the matter, in accordance with law and the attachment was kept pending until finalization of the proceedings. Pursuant to the same, District Collector considered the issue and directed continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner. Impugning the aforesaid order, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) The main contention urged by the petitioner is that, in the Government Order dated 02/08/2003 [Ext.P2(b)] there was a clear finding that the partnership was reconstituted by excluding the petitioner while he was a minor and the petitioner has ceased to be a beneficiary of the partnership firm. The period of assessment of sales tax arrears in question is later to the cessation of the petitioner as a beneficiary of the partnership firm. Therefore it is held that "as such the RR proceedings initiated against the petitioner has no legal standing in the eye of law. In the circumstances stated above, the case is remanded back to the District Collector, Kollam for initiating RR proceedings against all the persons who were partners of the firm during the period for which the Sales Tax arrears are due. The District Collector should enquire and find out who were the partners of the said firm for the period for which the arrears were due to Government and take necessary action accordingly. The revision petition is disposed as above".