Kerala High Court
Merero Hotels And Resorts Private ... vs State Of Kerala on 5 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 32831 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
M/S MERERO HOTELS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INDIAN
COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SMT.MERIN JOSE, MATHEW VIHAR, KOONAMTHAI,
EDAPPALLY P.O, KOCHI-24.
BY ADV
V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001.
2 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),
KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
ERNAKULAM, KALOOR, KOCHI PIN 682017
3 THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE, FINANCE TOWER, KALOOR,
KOCHI-682017, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.
4 THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695033.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS.
BIMAL K.NATH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
M.R.VENUGOPAL
DHANYA P.ASHOKAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 32831 OF 2018 -2-
JUDGMENT
The present writ petition is filed seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the first and third respondents to refund an amount of Rs.17,26,150/- (Rupees Seventeen lakh twenty six thousand one hundred and fifty only) and Rs.3,10,680/- (Rupees Three lakh ten thousand six hundred and eighty only) paid respectively towards the revenue recovery commission and GST.
2. Admittedly by Ext.P1 the petitioner was offered a settlement by the Kerala Financial Corporation under a one time settlement scheme. The facts are not disputed that the petitioner paid the aforesaid amount and closed the loan account with Kerala Financial Corporation. While the one time settlement was offered, admittedly the petitioner was under revenue recovery proceedings at the instance of Kerala Financial Corporation.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) NO. 32831 OF 2018 -3- Deputy Tahsildar and Another Vs. Vijaya Builders and Others (2016 (1) KHC 897) to contend that the petitioner is not liable to pay 1% of the RR commission when the claim is settled directly with the financial institution. The learned Senior Counsel Smt.Dhanya P. Ashokan as instructed by Sri.M.R.Venugopal takes this Court through another Division Bench judgment in Deputy Collector (RR) and Others v. Appu Jose (2017 KHC 2715) wherein Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, 1968 was considered. She also points out that Rule 5 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, 1968 was not considered by the judgment of the Division Bench referred to supra. She also refers to a judgment rendered by this Court in Ali Haji K.C. Vs. District Collector, Wayanad (2023 (1) KHC 552).
4. On the consideration of the contentions raised across the bar, I find that the petitioner had paid voluntarily the 1% of the commission which comes to WP(C) NO. 32831 OF 2018 -4- Rs.17,26,150/- (Rupees Seventeen lakh twenty six thousand one hundred and fifty only). Rs.150/- (Rupees One hundred and fifty only) is referable to the notice charges. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for refund of GST is concerned, I am afraid that this Court cannot direct the Kerala Financial Corporation to refund the said amount because it falls for the revenue recovery charges and it is paid to GST Board and the same is clarified by the learned Senior Counsel.
Admittedly, the revenue recovery proceedings were pending when the one time settlement was offered by the Kerala Financial Corporation. Therefore, the parties were obliged to pay 1% of the revenue recovery charges to the revenue authorities pursuant to the settlement. At any rate, I find that the petitioner has agreed to that while accepting the terms and conditions of one time settlement. Therefore, the petitioner cannot later turn around and contend that 1% of the RR charges has to be WP(C) NO. 32831 OF 2018 -5- excluded. Therefore, the prayer for refund is liable to be declined. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S. JUDGE vv WP(C) NO. 32831 OF 2018 -6- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32831/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION DATED 13.8.2018 EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24.3.2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 27.3.2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 16.8.2018 ISSUED FOR THE REMITTANCE OF RS 17,26,150/-
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 16.8.2018 ISSUED FOR THE REMITTANCE OF RS,3,10,680/-
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2016(1) KHC 897