Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 22097 OF 2023 PETITIONER:
BAIJU AHAMED AGED 57 YEARS, S/O BABU K.P, FLAT NO.9 A, TAMARIND NEST, CHEROTY NAGAR, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673004 BY ADVS.
DILEEP VARGHESE N.RAYNOLD FERNANDEZ TESMY VARGHEESE RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 2 CHIEF MANAGER,KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION (KFC) MANUEL SON'S BUILDINGS, G H ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 BY ADVS.
ADV. VENUGOPAL M.R.
DHANYA P.ASHOKAN(K/001671/2000) S. MUHAMMAD ALIKHAN(K/000644/2020) SREEDARSHAN SUDHAKARAN(K/1349/2023) SRI. P.S.APPU, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 22097 OF 2023 2 JUDGMENT
The petitioner availed of certain loan liabilities from the Kerala State Financial Corporation (KFC) and admits that there was some default in repayment of the same. This led to a Revenue Recovery notice being issued to him by the 1st respondent, on the requisition of the “KFC”; against which, he remitted an amount of Rs.74 lakhs, and an amount of Rs.74,160/- was remitted by the KFC as collection charges to the revenue.
2.
Thereafter, another Revenue Recovery requisition was initiated by the 2nd respondent, based on which, another notice was issued to the petitioner; consequent of which, he paid a further amount of Rs.2,29,35,200/- - which included belated interest also thus, completing
WP(C) NO. 22097 OF 2023 3 a total payment of Rs.3,03,35,200/-.
3.
Though, it is now well settled – and as is admitted by the learned Government Pleader - Sri.P.S.Appu - that the Revenue can charge only 1% of the amounts remitted by the petitioner under settlement with “KFC” as recovery charges, the latter appears to have intimated the 1st respondent – Tahsildar, through Ext.P2, that the total Revenue Recovery charges would come to Rs.7,85,372/-, added with GST of Rs.1,28,080/-, thus totalling Rs.8,39,230/-. The petitioner opposes this, asserting that the maximum that he can be asked to pay as Revenue Recovery Collection charges is 1% of Rs.3,03,35,200/-, which he has remitted to the “KFC” in full and final settlement of the all the loan accounts, along with the applicable GST at the rate of 18% over and nothing more. He thus prays that Ext.P2
WP(C) NO. 22097 OF 2023 4 be quashed.
4.
In response to the afore submissions of Sri.Dileep Varghese – learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the KFC – Smt.Dhanya Ashokan, conceded that the total amount paid by the petitioner to her client is Rs.3,03,35,200/-; and that going by the law applicable, only 1% of it can be charged by the Revenue as recovery charges. She added that, in fact, at the time when the first tranche of Rs.74,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.74,160/- had already been recovered and paid to the Revenue; and therefore, that the balance could only be nearly Rs.2.30 lakhs, along with “DNF” Charges and GST @ 18%. She submitted that, however, since 1st respondent refused to accede to this and demanded that 7.5% of the 1st tranche of Rs.74
WP(C) NO. 22097 OF 2023 5 lakhs be also paid as revenue recovery charges, her clients were constrained to issue Ext.P2 requisition. She added that her client will abide by any direction be issued by this Court.
5.
Sri.P.S.Appu – learned Government Pleader, in response, submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed by his client by the 1st respondent, wherein, it was explained that at the time when the 1st tranche of Rs.74 lakhs was paid by the petitioner, only 1% recovery charges had been remitted to the Revenue. He submitted that, thereafter, an amount of Rs.2,29,35,200/- was paid by the petitioner in settlement of other loan accounts and that 1% on it also becomes the recovery charges eligible to be collected by the Revenue. He submitted that since the total amount in such manner is Rs.7,85,372/-, the final figure becomes
WP(C) NO. 22097 OF 2023 6 Rs.7,11,212/- reducing the amount of Rs.74,160/- earlier paid (being 1% of Rs.74 lakhs); and hence that the figure computed in Ext.P2 is irreproachable. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
6.
I am afraid that I cannot find with the afore submissions of Sri.P.S.Appu because he does not have a case and he admits unequivocally, that the collection charges for any amount that is paid directly to the KFC by the petitioner under settlement can only be 1%.
Going by such, the maximum amount that Revenue could collect as recovery charges is 1% of Rs.3,03,35,200/-, which amounts to Rs.3,352/-;
out of which, an amount of Rs.74,160/- has admittedly being paid. This figure represents the collection charges remitted by the “KFC” when the first tranche of Rs.74 lakhs was
WP(C) NO. 22097 OF 2023 7 accepted from the petitioner, as I have already said above. Obviously, therefore, the balance collection charge is in the vicinity of Rs.2.3 lakhs or there about. This, along with the other eligible charges and GST @ 18% over the aforementioned amount of Rs.3,03,35,200/-, would
certainly
be
much
lesser
than Rs.8,39,230/-, as mentioned in Ext.P2.
7. This Court, therefore, certainly finds in favour of the petitioner, since the amounts now mentioned in Ext.P2 are untenable.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P2; with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to calculate the revenue recovery charges in terms of law, adverting to the total figure paid by the petitioner in settlement of the various loan accounts and thus cause a fresh requisition to
WP(C) NO. 22097 OF 2023 8 the 1st respondent, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On the 1st respondent receiving such requisition from the “KFC”, he will proceed to recover the same from the petitioner in terms of law, after affording him necessary opportunities and after issuing to him the imperative notice, under the Revenue Recovery Act.
Needless to say, the right of the petitioner to challenge any such notice is also left open.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS
WP(C) NO. 22097 OF 2023 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22097/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.06.2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 12.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.