Loading...

M/S. S.R. Cashews (P) Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.) on 22 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
M/S. S.R. Cashews (P) Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.) on 22 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16045 of 2007(I)


1. M/S. S.R. CASHEWS (P) LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.),
                       ...       Respondent

2. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),

3. VILLAGE OFFICER,

4. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, KOLLAM.

5. CHANDRAMONY,

6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

7. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.G.ARUN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :22/08/2007

 O R D E R
                  C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                  -----------------------------------
                    WP(C) No. 16045 of 2007
                       -------------------------
            Dated, this the 21st day of August, 2007

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioner firm, a defaulter to sales tax arrears and arrears of

loan due to the 4th respondent Bank, is challenging sale of property

by the 2nd respondent to the 5th respondent for Rs. 19.90 lakhs.

The sale was made on 25/04/2007 and the purchaser remitted 15%

on the date of sale and balance on 22/05/2007. Petitioner’s case is

that the additional respondent impleaded herein has agreed to

purchase the property for nearly Rs. 10 lakhs above the price on

which it was sold to 5th respondent. The confirmation of sale was

stayed by this Court. I feel, sale calls for interference because of

the simple reason that the sale price offered by the proposed

purchaser, i.e. Addl. Respondent herein, is 50% above the price

offered by the purchaser. Moreover, even though defaulter is the

applicant, this Court has to take into account the interest of the

State, to which around Rs. 15 lakhs sales tax arrears is due, and

also of the Nationalised Bank, to which also a substantial amount is

due. Even though Bank was already given an opportunity to find

out a purchaser to purchase the property for an amount above the

proposed purchase price, Bank failed to comply with the same. In

WP(C) No. 16045/2007
-2-

the circumstances and also taking into account the interest of the

purchaser, I allow the writ petition quashing the sale made in favour

of the 5th respondent, on the additional respondent paying to 5th

respondent the entire amount deposited by him, along with it 5% in

terms of Section 52 of the RR Act, within a period of three weeks

from now. Besides this, the additional respondent impleaded herein

should deposit the balance amount of the sale price of Rs. 29 lakhs

before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent will adjust from the

amounts collected from the 5th respondent and from the additional

respondent, towards arrears of tax dues to the State first and pay

the balance to the 4th respondent Bank. The adjustment by the

Tahsildar towards arrears due to the State will be subject to the

result of appeal filed before the Supreme Court against the decision

of this Court in some other cases. It will be open to the Bank to

proceed with recovery against he petitioner for the balance liability.

If payment is not made within three weeks from now as stated

above, sale in favour of the 5th respondent will be confirmed and it

will be open to the petitioner to challenge it, if there is any

irregularity in sale.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)
jg

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information