Bpcl Kochi Refinery vs. M.I.Abu
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1943 EX.FA NO. 6 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2021 IN. E.A.NO. 152/2019 IN E.P.NO.15/2017 IN LAR 34/2012 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/GARNISHEE: BPCL KOCHI REFINERY AMBALAMUGAL,ERNAKULAM-682302; REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(FINANCE)- MR.R.S.SREEKUMAR. BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENTS/DECREE-HOLDER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: 1 M.I.ABU S/O EBRAHIM, MEYKAPADICKAL HOUSE, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA-686673. 2 SAFIA, W/O ABU,MEYKAPADICKAL HOUSE, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA-686673. 3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION BUILDING,KAKKANAD,KOCHI-682030. R1& R2 BY ADV SHINDO VARGHESE R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADAER THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 01.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
EX.FA NO. 6 OF 2021 2 JUDGMENT The garnishee came up challenging the garnishee proceedings in execution of a decree (award) for Rs.30,17,645/- against the judgment debtor, the State of Kerala mainly on the reason that the impugned order was passed in violation of Section 162 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short the GST Act) and also on the ground that the tax authority will not recognise the valid discharge under Rule 46 F of Order XXI C.P.C.
The bar under Section 162 of GST Act would operate only with respect to the matters brought under the purview of the said Act saving Sections 117 and 118 of the Act. It may not have any application pertaining to execution under Order XXI C.P.C. especially to Rule 46 series of Order XXI C.P.C. Further there is no much merit that it will not be recognized by the taxing authority under the
EX.FA NO. 6 OF 2021 3 Act while submitting return on the tax payable. During the course of argument, the 3rd respondent/State
Government
raised
a contention challenging the abovesaid order that the tax payable would become debt only when a self assessment return or statutory return was submitted. But it is an admitted case from the affidavit submitted by the garnishee that they are making payment of tax on a monthly basis and as such, there is no merit in the abovesaid submission, especially when they have not opted to challenge the said order either by appeal or otherwise. The appeal fails, dismissed. No costs. P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV
EX.FA NO. 6 OF 2021 4 APPENDIX RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURE ANNEXURE R1 (a) CERTIFIED COPY OF EFFECTING OF THE ATTACHMENT ORDER RECEIVED BY THE GARNISHEE ON 23.03.2021 ALONG WITH ATTACHMENT SCHEDULE. ANNEXURE R1(B) CERTIFIED COPY OF EFFECTING OF THE DIRECTION LETTER TO DEPOSIT THE ATTACHED AMOUNT INTO THE COURT, RECEIVED
BY THE GARNISHEE
ON 23.03.2021. //// PA TO JUDGE
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.