IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20766 of 2009(M)
1. K.M.SHAILA, D/O.MUHAMMED SHAREEF,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SALES TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (RR),
3. VILLAGE OFFICER,
4. P.M.SUBAIR, SUBANI TIMBER,
5. T.M.JALALUDDHIN,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :25/08/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 20766 of 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 25th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
The property purchased by the petitioner from the 5th respondent
(surety to the 4th respondent) is subjected to coercive steps under the
Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, for realization of the ‘sales tax arrears’
due from the 4th respondent. The first respondent has filed a statement
pointing out that, the 5th respondent had executed a ‘Bond’ much prior
to the conveyance of the title to the petitioner and there is a total tax
liability of Rs. 9,20,184/- in respect of the period from 1992 – 93 to 2004
– ’05 from the 4th respondent, who is the defaulter. By virtue of the Bond
executed by the 5th respondent, a surety to the 4th respondent, the
liability was sought to be realized from the 5th respondent as well. It is
by virtue of the liability created as above, on the basis of the Bond
executed by the 5th respondent, who subsequently transferred the
property in question to the petitioner thereafter, that the machinery
under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act has been turned against the
petitioner as well.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Bond
amount is much less than the total liability sought to be recovered and
WP (C) No. 20766 of 2009
: 2 :
in turn, the properties purchased by the petitioner from the 5th
respondent can be proceeded against only to the extent of liability as
created under the Bond and nothing more.
4. This issue had come up for consideration before this Court on
an earlier occasion and after referring to the relevant provisions of law
including Rule 6 (2) (e) of the KGST Rules, this Court, as per judgment
dated 2.6.2009 in WP (C) 5167 of 2008 has held that, the liability is to
be confined to the amount covered by the Bond and that no wider
liability can be sought to be fixed on the surety.
5. In the above facts and circumstances, it is hereby made clear
that, the respondents are very much entitled to proceed against the
properties conveyed by the 5th respondent to the petitioner, to the
extent the 5th respondent has undertaken the liability to the Department
as stipulated in the ‘Bond’ executed in this regard, demanding which, a
notice shall be issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent, before
proceeding with further R.R. steps. Considering the persuasive
submissions made from the part of the petitioner that, the husband of
the petitioner is no more and that the petitioner is already hit by much
adverse circumstances, the liability to the extent as stated hereinbefore
(as covered by the ‘Bond’ executed by the 5th respondent) is permitted
to be cleared by way of 5 equal monthly installments; the first of which
WP (C) No. 20766 of 2009
: 3 :
shall be effected on or before the 15th day of serving the notice as
above; to be followed by the remaining installments to be satisfied on
before the 15th of the succeeding months.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd