High Court Kerala High Court

Rossy Emmanuel vs The Sales Tax Officer on 27 May, 2008

Kerala High Court
Rossy Emmanuel vs The Sales Tax Officer on 27 May, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15361 of 2008(D)


1. ROSSY EMMANUEL, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. GEORGE EMMANUEL, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
3. AJI EMMANUEL, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
4. ANN BABY PRATHESH,

                        Vs



1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, THALASSERY.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER,

3. THE TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA TALUK,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJU JOSEPH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :27/05/2008

 O R D E R
                                   K.M.JOSEPH, J.
                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                            WP.(C) No.15361 of 2008
                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                       Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008

                                      JUDGMENT

First petitioner is the wife of Sri.Emmanueal George,

Kochuparambil. It is submitted that the other petitioners are the children.

The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows:

They inherited some property after the death of Sri.Emmanueal

George, and they are in possession. There are some arrears due from

Sri.Emmanueal George and his brother Sri.Thomas George. Exts.P1 and P2

are notices issued by the third respondent. Petitioners made inquiries. Later

on, it is stated that the properties are scheduled to be sold on 29.5.2008.

Petitioners have approached this court on the basis that in the meantime the

Kerala General Sales Tax Act has been amended by the Finance Act, 2008

by inserting Section 23B, wherein certain benefits are granted for persons

who should make an application in the prescribed form before 30.6.2008.

According to the petitioners they are prepared to avail the benefit of the

scheme.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. Raju Joseph

and the learned Government Pleader.

WPC.15361/2008. 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners will make an application in terms of the Scheme and in the

meantime any sale conducted as proposed would deprive them of the benefit

of the statutory scheme and it may not be permitted.

4. Learned Government Pleader also submits that if the

petitioners make an application in terms of the Scheme and comply with the

terms of the Scheme, they may be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme.

5. Having regard to the facts, I feel that the sale as proposed on

29.5.2008 should not be permitted to be held in view of the statutory

scheme and in view of the fact that petitioners have time till 30.6.2008 to

make the application in the prescribed form.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:

The proposed sale as per Ext.P2 will be postponed for a period

of five weeks. It is for the petitioners to make the application in the

prescribed form. If the petitioners do not make the application as

prescribed, the respondents will be free to proceed to conduct the sale in

accordance with law. If, on the other hand, the petitioners do make the

application, the sale proceedings shall stand adjourned further so as to

WPC.15361/2008. 3

enable the petitioners to avail the benefit of the statutory scheme and the

property will be dealt with in terms of the Scheme.

(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

sb