IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

TH THURSDAY, THE 12 DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 19421 OF 2025 PETITIONER/S:

SAJIMON, AGED 46 YEARS S/O ALIKUNJU, MADATHIL HOUSE, KEEZHMAD P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683105 BY ADVS.

SHRI.K.I.SAGEER SRI.MUHAMMED YASIL RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,SALE TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

3 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683110

4 VILLAGE OFFICER, MARAMPILLY VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683131

5 COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MINI CIVIL STATION, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN -

683542

6 STATE TAX OFFICER, TAX PAYER CIRCLE, MINI CIVIL STATION, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683542 OTHER PRESENT:

SHRI.ARUN AJAY SANKAR, G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2025 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand of collection charges to the extent of Rs.84,194/-, in respect of the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows.

The petitioner stood as a surety, for one Mr Ali, in respect of certain business transactions for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with the Department of Commercial Taxes. Later, as against the said Ali, proceedings were initiated by the Commercial Taxes Department for recovering a total amount of Rs.2,17,10,903/-, under the provision of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. As the petitioner was one of the sureties, a notice was issued to the petitioner as well. Initially, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 21.06.2022 as evidenced by Ext.P1. Later, the petitioner challenged the notice issued to him, disputing his liability by filing W.P.(C) No. 20046/2022 before this Court.

2. The said writ petition was disposed as per Ext.P2 judgment, wherein, the liability of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/- as covered as per the bond executed by him was upheld and the petitioner was directed to make the payment of Rs.12,00,000/- which is the amount after adjusting Rs.3,00,000/- already paid by the petitioner, in 20 equal monthly instalments commencing from 15.11.2022. In compliance of the direction issued in Ext.P2 the petitioner had remitted the entire amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the compliance of the aforesaid directions, the petitioner was again served with Ext.P4 notice dated 09.05.2025 wherein, the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs.84,194/- as the collection charges payable to the revenue authorities for initiating revenue recovery proceedings. This notice is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri.K.I. Sageer, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Arun Ajay Shankar, the learned Government Pleader for the State.

4. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in the light of the observations and directions in Ext.P2 judgment, the petitioner cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay the collection charges.

5. However, after carefully going through the observations made by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment, I do not find any merit in this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. This is particularly because, in Ext.P2, the liability of the petitioner to pay the amount to the extent of the liability as undertaken by him as per the bond executed, was upheld and the petitioner was granted an opportunity to settle the liability in instalments. It is also a fact that petitioner approached this Court, by filing the writ petition which culminated in Ext.P2, after the recovery proceedings were initiated and the amounts were also remitted based on the directions issued by this Court. As far as the collection char