IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28517 of 2010(L)
1. M.S.SUKUMARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
5. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.),
6. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
7. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.M.PREM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :25/11/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
---------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.28517 of 2010-L
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the Managing Partner of a firm which
established an industrial unit in the ‘Industrial Development
Area’ at Kanjikode, Palakkad. The unit became defunct
since 1999 onwards, but revived functioning during the year
2005. With respect to settlement of arrears of sales tax due
from the firm, application was submitted before the 6th
respondent, seeking benefits under the Amnesty Scheme, as
provided under Section 23B of the KGST Act. The said
application was rejected as per Ext.P3 letter assigning the
reason that, the amount in arrears, “are in the stage of
bought-in-land by the revenue authorities”.
2. It is stated that with respect to amounts due for
the years 1988-89 and 1989-90, revenue recovery steps
were initiated against the petitioner, and the industrial land
of the unit was attached and put to public auction. Invoking
Section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the
W.P(C) No.28517 of 2010-L 2
Government had purchased the land for a sum of Rs.1/-, on
11.11.1999. Subsequently, the sale was confirmed as per
the order of the Sub Collector, Palakkad issued dated
10.12.1999.
3. According to the petitioner, the industrial land in
question, which was purchased by the Government was not
a land upon which the petitioner was having title. It is
stated that the land in question was the property of the
Industries Department. Eventhough the petitioner had
remitted value of the land to the Industries Department in
instalments, the Revenue Department has not transferred
the title, on issuing ‘patta’ for assignment. It is stated that,
the authorities of the Industries Department had taken up
the matter with the 1st respondent and it was clarified that
the land in question belonged to the Industries Department.
4. However, a request submitted by the petitioner
for re-conveyance of the land was rejected by the 1st
respondent stating the reason that the re-conveyance can
be effected only if such application made within a period of
W.P(C) No.28517 of 2010-L 3
two years, as stipulated by the Government in a circular
issued in this regard.
5. Question to be considered in this writ petition is
as to whether the rejection of application submitted for the
benefit of Amnesty Scheme was legal and justified. The
benefit was denied to the petitioner solely on the ground
that, property belonging to the petitioner was taken over by
the Government as bought-in-land. The question remains as
to whether the petitioner was the owner of the property
and as to whether the Government was justified in
purchasing the land invoking Section 50 of the Kerala
Revenue Recovery Act. The dispute in this regard need not
be resolved in this writ petition, because that is not the
issue involved herein. Whether the denial of benefit under
the Amnesty Scheme was justified, even assuming that the
property was belonging to the petitioner. In such a case the
property became vested in the Government, when it was
purchased invoking Section 50 and when the said purchase
was confirmed by the competent authority. Going by
W.P(C) No.28517 of 2010-L 4
provisions contained in Section 23B, the benefit of Amnesty
Scheme could not be denied merely because certain
properties belonging to the defaulter had already been
purchased by the Government under Section 50. Once the
sale is complete ownership of the petitioner will stand
transferred to the Government and such property can never
be construed as an asset belonging to the petitioner. In
such case the petitioner cannot be considered as a person
having assets, having valuation of more than the amount for
which the arrears need be settled under the scheme.
6. Therefore, there is no justification in denying
benefit of Amnesty Scheme, on the ground that the revenue
recovery proceedings had culminated in purchase of land
belonging to the petitioner under Section 50 of the Kerala
Revenue Recovery Act. Further, even if the Government
had purchased the land invoking Section 50 of the Kerala
Revenue Recovery Act, the petitioner continues to be a
defaulter and he is in arrears of the entire amount, less the
amount of Rs.1/- for which the land was purchased.
W.P(C) No.28517 of 2010-L 5
Therefore, the request for benefit under the Amnesty
Scheme could not be denied. On a perusal of the relevant
provisions, it is evident that the reason mentioned in Ext.P3
is not sustainable.
7. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view
that Ext.P3 is unsustainable in the eye of law. Therefore,
Ext.P3 is hereby quashed. The 6th respondent is directed to
re-consider the application for Amnesty Scheme, on the
basis of the observations made above and to pass orders
thereon, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing
to the petitioner, at the earliest possible, at any rate within
a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
8. It is made clear that, I have not expressed any
opinion with respect to the right of the petitioner for getting
the bought-in-land re-conveyed or with respect to rights of
the Government in purchasing the land invoking Section 50
of the Act. It is for the Government to take appropriate
decision based on communications issued by the authorities
W.P(C) No.28517 of 2010-L 6
of the Industries Department. It is also left open to the
petitioner to approach the Government seeking re-
conveyance, if the Government takes a stand that the
purchase under Section 50 was valid, after remittance of
the arrears under the Amnesty Scheme. However, it is left
open to the Government to take a decision in such case
depending upon the policy of the Government in such
matters.
The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above
directions.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge
ab
W.P(C) No.28517 of 2010-L 7