The court allows a writ petition directing tax authorities to return a title deed or confirm its loss, clarifying obligations under statutory procedures.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a partnership firm and was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act , 2003 on the rolls of the 1^st respondent. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner in this writ petition is regarding the failure on the part of the respondents in returning the original title deed furnished by the petitioner towards the security before the 1^st respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5.

2. Earlier, as per Ext.P1 order passed in an interlocutory application submitted by the petitioner in an appeal filed by it, the petitioner was granted stay of recovery proceedings, by the First Appellate Authority, on condition that, the petitioner shall remit 25% of the amount in dispute and shall furnish security for the balance amount in any form stipulated under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and Rules, before the Assessing Authority, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. According to the petitioner, in compliance of the said condition, 25% of the amount was paid as per Exts.P2 and P3 security bonds were executed by submitting the original copy of Ext.P4 title deed of the property of the petitioner, as security. Ext.P5 is the covering letter referring to the submission of the original deed to the Commercial and Taxes Officer, II Circle, Kalamassery, which contains an endorsement of the officer concerned with the official seal of the said authority. The appeal was allowed in favour of the petitioner modifying the appellate order. Even though a challenge was raised against the said order, by the Department, before the Tribunal, the appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P7 order. Thus, the appellate order has become final.

3. Consequent to the order passed in appeal, the petitioner sought the return of the original title deed furnished by the petitioner as security. The communications issued by the petitioner in this regard are Exts.P8, P9, P10 and P11. However, in response to the aforesaid communications, Ext.P12 was issued by the 1^st respondent, pointing out that, after verification of the assessment records, the original title deed and Form 6 Bond mentioned in the application could not be traced out. Therefore, this writ petition is submitted in such circumstances seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st Respondent to return Exhibit-P4 original Title Deed submitted by the Petitioner in order to fulfill the stay condition within a definite period as fixed by this Hon’able Court;

(ii) To dispense the filing of translation of the vernacular document; and (iii) Pass such other orders as the Hon’able Court deems justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. A counter affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent wherein, they have denied the receipt of the of the original title deed. Such denial was raised, mainly on the ground that, Ext.R1(b), which is the inward register, does not contain the entry regarding the receipt of the of the original title deed. Besides, it was also averred that, Ext.R1(a), which is the original copy of Ext.P5 received by the Assessing Authority, contains an endorsement to the effect that, “Please keep the bond under safe custody”. Thus, it was contended that the reference is only with respect to the bond and not with respect to the original title deed. Based on the above, it was contended that, the Assessing Authority never received the original title deed of the petitioner.

5. I have heard Sri.P.S. Soman, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Reshmitha R. Chandran, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

6. The only question that arises is whether the relief sought by the petitioner to return the original title deed can