JUDGMENT
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.
1. The petitioners challenge recovery proceedings initiated vide exhibits P2 to P7 for recovery of arrears of sales tax due from one Mrs. Jessy Chacko who is the defaulter to sales tax. The petitioners’ contention is that recovery against the petitioners is on account of execution of exhibit P1 surety bond in form No. 6 undertaking to discharge liability to the extent of Rs. 1,10,000 in the event of the assessee (Jessy Chacko) failing to remit the same. I have gone through exhibit P1 surety bond in form No. 6 executed by the petitioners along with the assessee/defaulter Mrs. Jessy Chacko. I heard the Government Pleader also. Obviously the surety bond is authorising the department to recover only the amount covered by the bond from the sureties. The petitioners’ contention that the defaulter only should be made liable to pay the liability and the petitioners as sureties cannot be proceeded against, cannot be accepted. But the alternate contention that the recovery should be limited to the extent of Rs. 1,10,000 as agreed under exhibit P1 is accepted. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to recover the amount of Rs. 1,10,000 from both petitioners and the department is free to proceed against the defaulter or the defaulter’s property for any liability over and above the amount secured by exhibit P1 bond. It is seen that the petitioners have not made the defaulter a party in this case, though the petitioners jointly executed exhibit P1 surety bond in form No. 6 before the first respondent. Therefore, I find the petitioners are not entitled to any more relief than limiting the extent of liability to the amount guaranteed under exhibit P1, i.e., Rs. 1,10,000. The respondents are free to investigate whereabouts of the defaulter and proceed against her properties for recovery of the balance arrears.
O.P. is disposed of as above.
Order on C.M.P. No. 47233 of 2001 in O.P. No. 29033 of 2001(F) dismissed.