IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON TUESDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 33163 OF 2019 PETITIONER:

BINDU MADHAV, AGED 69 YEARS, BHIMA GOLD AND GEMS, VILLA NO.1, NEPTUNE COLONY, PANDACHIRA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-682020.

BY ADVS.

SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748)

SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD SHRI.JOB ABRAHAM SRI.AJAY V.ANAND RESPONDENTS:

1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685554.

2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685584.

3 THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR), KANAYANNOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682011.

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.ARUN AJAY SHANKAR,GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

28.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to be a Managing Director of a Private Limited Company which is an assessee under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, has filed the captioned writ petition challenging Ext.P18 notice issued by the 3^rd respondent demanding collection charges under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, 1968. 2. I have heard Sri.A.Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Arun Ajay Shankar, the learned Government Pleader.

3. A reading of Ext.P18 discloses that collection charges are sought to be realised with reference to a payment of 20% of the total demand made by the petitioner ‘directly to the assessing authority’. From the afore, I notice two aspects:

Firstly, the payment was a voluntary payment, with reference to the provisions of Section 55 of the KVAT Act, 2003. Secondly, the payment was made directly to the assessing authority under the Act and not to the revenue authorities.

4. From the afore, I am of the opinion that the provisions of Rule 5 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, 1968, providing for imposition of collection charges against payments made by the assessee/defaulter to the revenue authority, do not apply.

5. For the above reason, I am of the opinion that Ext.P18 cannot be sustained.

Resultantly, Ext.P18 issued by the 3^rd respondent would stand set aside. This writ petition would stand allowed as above.

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE ANA APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33163/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2016 DATED 19.5.2016.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2016 DATED 19.5.2016.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2016 DATED 19.5.2016.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED

27.4.2017.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED

5.5.2017.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.17873 OF

2017 DATED 7.6.2017.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER REJECTING THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED

29.6.2019.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2016 DATED 29.10.2019.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2016 DATED 29.10.2019.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2016 DATED 29.10.2019.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2016 DATED 29.10.2019.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2016 DATED 29.10.2019.

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2016 DATED 29.10.2019.

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO CONDONE DELAY FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2016 DATED

29.10.2019.

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO CONDONE DELAY FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2016 DATED

29.10.2019.

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO CONDONE DELAY FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2016 DATED

29.10.2019.

EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ENCLOSING THE DEMAND DRAFT TOWARDS PAYMENT OF THE

20%.

EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.11.2019.