CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 03 KL CK 0181

M/s. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs The State of Kerala and The Manager, Hongkong and Shankai Banking Company Ltd.

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 2 March 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Antony Dominic, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 5163 of 2012 (U)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 353 words

Antony Dominic, J.—The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1, a prohibitory order issued by the respondents u/s 19 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, on the ground that the petitioner has failed to pay an amount of Rs. 31,42,114/- and the interest thereon. The contention raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P1 does not disclose the liability towards which the prohibitory has been issued and that no demand notice for the said amount has been served on him.

2.

In the light of the averments to that effect, the learned Government Pleader was asked to obtain instructions in the matter. Accordingly, she has obtained instructions which show that the amount mentioned in the prohibitory order is due towards the tax assessed for the year 2002-2003 and that a revision filed before the High Court was dismissed by the judgment dated 07.07.2011. It is stated that in spite of the High Court judgment, the amount was not paid and it was therefore, the recovery proceedings had to be initiated.

3.

From the above submissions made by the learned Government Pleader it can be seen that there is no substance in the case of the petitioner that they are unaware of the liability for the recovery of which, the impugned proceedings have been initiated. However, the only justification now offered is that the petitioner has filed SLP against the High Court judgment.

4.

In so far as, this justification offered by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, petitioner has no case that the apex court has entertained the SLP proceedings or that the apex court passed any interim order in his favour. In such circumstances, respondents cannot be faulted for the action they have initiated. Therefore, the writ petition will stand dismissed.

5.

However, the petitioner is permitted to pay the amount due under Ext.P1 in two instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 06.03.2012 and the second instalment shall be paid on or before 16.03.2012. Subject to such payment Ext.P1 will stand stayed and if payment is defaulted, recovery can continue.

6.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.