Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27016
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Easwaran S., J
MERERO HOTELS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 32831/2018
Acceptance of terms in a settlement binds the party to the payment obligations, precluding later attempts to contest those obligations.
Headnote:
Refund - Writ Petition - Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, 1968 - Section 5 - Petitioner liable for revenue recovery charges upon settlement acceptance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a refund of amounts paid towards revenue recovery commission and GST after settling a loan with the Kerala Financial Corporation. The petitioner contended that they should not be liable for the commission due to direct settlement with the institution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner voluntarily paid the revenue recovery charges and that the obligation to pay 1% was consistent with the terms accepted during the one-time settlement. The court emphasized that since the petitioner agreed to the terms, the refund request was without merit.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of revenue recovery charges paid under the one-time settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that agreement to terms during a settlement process binds the parties to those terms, and once accepted, the payment obligations cannot be contested.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
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 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 , 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 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 excluded. Therefore, the prayer for refund is liable to be declined. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
