Sajimon vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 1506 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

    THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.1031 OF 2021(D)


PETITIONER/S:

                SAJIMON, AGED 42 YEARS
                S/O. ALIKUNJU, MADATHIL HOUSE, KEEZHMADU P.O. ALUVA.

                BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
                SALE TAX DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

      2         THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

      3         THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR),
                TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD 683 110.

      4         THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
                MARAMPILLY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM 683 131.

      5         THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
                PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM 683 101.

      6         ALI,S/O. MUHAMMAED, APPELY HOUSE, PALLIPRAMKARA,
                PALLIKKAVALA, MUDICAL, PERUMBAVOOR 683 101.


                SMT. THUSHARA JAMES, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.1031 OF 2021                2



                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of January 2021

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner is a guarantor with dues of sales tax.

The assessee, in submission of the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, is not depositing the amount of dues of sales tax

despite judgment of this Court in W.P.(C). No.19241 of 2019

passed on 05.02.2020. The petitioner submits that he wants to

clear the dues, if benefits of the Amnesty Scheme is granted to

him and for that purpose, he filed Ext.P2 representation before

the 5th respondent. The limited prayer made in the writ petition is

for directing the respondents and more particularly, the 5 th

respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation of the petitioner.

3. The learned Government Pleader opposed the petition

by contending that being a guarantor, it is the duty of the

petitioner to discharge his liability.

4. Having considered the submissions so advanced,

keeping in mind the fact that the respondents are bound to

consider the representation made by the petitioner for One Time

Settlement under Amnesty scheme 2020, the writ petition is

disposed of with the following direction:-

The 5th respondent shall take up, consider and decide Ext.P2

representation of the petitioner, if not already decided, within a

period of three months from the date of communication of this

judgment by the learned Government Pleader. In the meanwhile,

till decision of Ext.P2 representation, no coercive steps should be

taken against the petitioner.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

                                                 A.M.BADAR
ajt                                                JUDGE





                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1              A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

05.02.2020 IN WPC NO. 19241/2019 OF THIS HONBLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.11.2020.