IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26197 of 2008(R)
1. K.T.PAVOO, S/O. LATE K.T.THAVOO
... Petitioner
2. THOMAS.P.JACOB,S/O.PANAKKAL JACOB
Vs
1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
For Petitioner :DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :25/09/2008
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WP.(C) No.26197 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
The first petitioner is a defaulter under the KGST Act. The
second petitioner purchased property from the first petitioner. There were
recovery proceedings and the second petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.26594 of
2007. This court granted stay of further proceedings against sale of the
second petitioner’s property on condition that he remits Rs.Two Lakhs and
the assessing authority was directed to file a detailed statement. In the
meantime Government of Kerala introduced Amnesty Scheme and the first
petitioner applied and got the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. By Ext.P4,
petitioner has been called upon to pay the arrears under the Amnesty
Scheme in a total sum of Rs.2,09,418/-. Therefore, petitioners pray for a
direction to the first respondent to adjust the payment made by the second
petitioner as per Ext.P2 receipt towards the amount payable as per the
Amnesty Scheme as per Ext.P4 and to direct the second respondent to
forward the amount covered by Ext.P2 to the first respondent without
collecting any collection charges so as to enable the first respondent to
credit the same towards the amount payable under the Amnesty Scheme and
to direct the first respondent to receive the balance payment to be paid by
WPC.26197/2008. 2
the first petitioner after adjusting the amount paid in instalment and to
direct the first respondent to withdraw the revenue recovery proceedings.
2. I heard Dr.K.B.Mohamed Kutty, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and also the learned Government
Pleader.
3. The Government Pleader would point out that the second
petitioner secured an interim order of stay on condition of payment of
Rs.Two Lakhs, which lies in the revenue account, and if the petitioners pay
the amount as contemplated under the Scheme, the amount can be refunded
to the second petitioner.
4. The Scheme contemplates payment of the amount by the
defaulter. It may not be open to me to direct adjustment of the same from
the amount paid by the second petitioner in the other writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition praying for adjustment of
Rs.Two Lakhs may not lie and the same is rejected.
(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
sb