IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13749 of 2007(J)
1. RUBIAN EXPORTS,
... Petitioner
2. M/S.AYSHA ICE,
Vs
1. THE SALE TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
3. DEPUTY TASILDAR (R.R),
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :02/09/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 13749 OF 2007
.........................................................................
Dated this the 2nd September , 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners were assessees on the rolls of the first
respondent . The assessment in respect of the assessment year
1994-95 was completed as per Ext. P1 order, which was
subjected to challenge by filing Ext.P2 appeal, along with Ext.P3
petition for stay. Without any regard to the pendency of the
above proceedings, coercive steps were taken against the
petitioners as borne by Ext.P4 revenue recovery notice, which
made the petitioners to approach this Court earlier by filing
O.P.No.26364 of 1998 culminating in Ext. P5 judgment, whereby
the appellate authority was directed to consider and pass
appropriate orders in the petition for stay.
2. In the course of the above proceedings, the petitioners
sold a portion of his property to a stranger, as per sale deed
No.1179 of 2007 of the SRO, Kuthiathode . But when the
W.P.(C) No. 13749 OF 2007
2
transferee approached the revenue authorities to effect
‘mutation’, it was not entertained, stating that recovery
proceedings had already been initiated against the petitioners
herein, i.e., vendors to Ext. P6 sale deed and as such, no
mutation of the property was possible, which made the
petitioners to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition, as
insisted to be got settled, by the transferee of the property.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that,
considering the need of the hour, the petitioners have already
satisfied the entire tax liability, without prejudice to the rights
and liberties of the petitioners in the appeal. The learned
Counsel submits that Ext.P2 appeal preferred about 13 years
back is still in cold storage and seeks for a direction to be
given to the appellate authority to consider and finalise the
matter.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
5. No counter affidavit has been filed with regard to the
averments raised in the Writ Petition or as to the position as on
date.
W.P.(C) No. 13749 OF 2007
3
6. In the above circumstances, the second
respondent/concerned appellate authority is directed to finalise
Ext.P2 appeal , if the same is still to be finalised, after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt
of a copy of the judgment. On the finalisation of the appeal, if it
is found that any amount is to be refunded to the petitioners, it
shall be caused to be disbursed in accordance with law, within
one month thereafter.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk