VENKTRON DIGITAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred as 'KVAT Act'). In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that, pursuant to directions received from the 2nd respondent, the 4th respondent, with whom, the petitioner maintains a bank account bearing No.13160200014998, debited the said account in an amount of Rs. 3,29,216/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty nine thousand two hundred and sixteen) and made the said amount over to the 2nd respondent. Enquiries made by the petitioner revealed that the said amount represented the KVAT liability of the 5th respondent, which is a different concern, and the amount had nothing whatsoever to do with any liability of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent. The prayer sought for in the writ petition is essentially for a direction to the 2nd respondent to re-credit the petitioner's account with the amount that was debited therefrom.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, wherein, it is stated that one of the erstwhile Directors of the petitioner company is also now an integral part of the management of the 5th respondent, and while seeking VAT registration for the 5th respondent establishment, the said erstwhile Director had furnished the bank account of the petitioner, for the purposes of registration. It was under these circumstances that, when the 2nd respondent took steps to recover the amounts from the 5th respondent, a direction was given to the 4th respondent to effect the recovery from the said bank account not realising that the bank account pertained to the petitioner and not to the 5th respondent.

(3.) The counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent bank takes the stand that their actions were prompted by the instructions received from the 2nd respondent, and although they had initially written to the 2nd respondent pointing out the mismatch between the name of the account holder and the name of the defaulter as mentioned by the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent had insisted on a recovery of amounts from the said bank account, and it was under these circumstances that the 4th respondent complied with the directions of the 2nd respondent.