High Court Kerala High Court

Justin Scaria vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 29 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Justin Scaria vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 29 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 31535 of 2010(N)


1. JUSTIN SCARIA, S/O. SCARIA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAKKULAM VILLAGE,

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY,

4. THE TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM,

5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.UNISE MOHAMED KUNJU

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :29/10/2010

 O R D E R
                   C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
             =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
                 W.P.(C) No. 31535 of 2010
             =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
          Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010

                         JUDGMENT

Petitioner was the proprietor of an establishment,

“M/s. Vareekkal Traders, a firm engaged in the business of

Palm Oil , Coconut oil, Lamp oil, etc. According to the

petitioer, the business was closed in the year 2008 and the

petitioner had submitted ‘nil’ return for the purpose of

assessment for the period from May, 2008 to September,

2008. However, the assessments were completed by the 1st

respondent with respect to various periods from August

2006 onwards till March, 2009 as per Ext.P1 series orders.

It is stated that those assessments were finalized behind

back of the petitioner, without serving any notice on him. It

is stated that the petitioner had entrusted the originals of

Ext.P1 series orders with a Tax Consultant for filing appeal

against such orders. Subsequently, it was realized that no

such appeals were filed and the original of Ext.P1 series

W.P.(C) No. 31535/2010 2

orders were misplaced in the office of the Tax Consultant.

The whereabouts of the said consultant was not traceable

and the petitioner was not in a position to recover the

originals of Ext.P1 series. According to the petitioner, he

submitted Ext.P2 application before the 1st respondent for

getting certified copies of Ext.P1 series orders. In the

meanwhile recovery steps were initiated on issuing Ext.P3

series notices under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and

immovable property belonging to the petitioner was

proclaimed for sale under Ext.P5 notice. Under the above

circumstances, the petitioner is approaching this court

seeking direction restraining the recovery steps and also

seeking a direction against the 1st respondent for issuing

certified copies of Ext.P1 series orders of assessments.

2. In a statement filed on behalf of respondents it is

averred that pursuant to Ext.P5 notice, the property was

already auctioned on 14-10-2010 and the bid was fixed in

favour of one Mr.Raju Zacharia, brother of the petitioner for

an amount of Rs.12 lakhs and the bidder had already

W.P.(C) No. 31535/2010 3

remitted 15% of the amount. It is submitted by learned

Government Pleader that as per the instructions received,

Ext.P2 petition has not been received in the office of the 1st

respondent.

3. Petitioner has filed applications seeking to implead

the auction purchaser as well as the District Collector with

a view to challenge the auction sale conducted in this

regard. Having considered the factual position as above, I

am of the opinion that it is for the petitioner to work out his

remedies against the sale as provided under the provisions

of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It is left open to the

petitioner to approach the appropriate authority seeking to

set aside the sale, if he is aggrieved.

4. With respect to the liability, the petitioner has to

seek appropriate remedy as provided under the statute,

after getting certified copies of the assessment orders. If

the petitioner makes a proper application before the 1st

respondent and remits the necessary fee, the 1st respondent

shall issue certified copies of Ext.P1 series orders of

W.P.(C) No. 31535/2010 4

assessments, within one week from the date of receipt of

such application. On receipt of such copies, it is left open to

the petitioner to invoke the appellate remedy.

5. The writ petition is disposed of with the above

directions, reserving rights of the petitioner to approach the

appropriate authority seeking to set aside the sale, as well

as the rights to approach the appellate authority.

C. K. ABDUL REHIM,
JUDGE.

mn.