Revenue recovery attachment may proceed despite prior transfer, and an effective statutory remedy can bar writ relief.

In recovery of public dues, revenue authorities may attach property as belonging to the defaulter even where it had been transferred before the demand notice, without first setting aside the transfer; the transferee must instead pursue the statutory claim process or a civil suit to establish title. The Court also held that the availability of a revision remedy under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act attracted the constitutional bar on entertaining the writ petition under Article 226(3), as an effective alternative remedy existed. The attachment was upheld, the writ petition was barred, the order of the single judge was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether property transferred by a dealer before demand notice could still be attached for recovery of sales tax arrears without first setting aside the transfer. (ii) Whether the existence of a revision remedy under the Revenue Recovery Act barred the writ petition under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether property transferred by a dealer before demand notice could still be attached for recovery of sales tax arrears without first setting aside the transfer.

Analysis: The recovery authorities proceeded against the property as belonging to the defaulter despite a prior registered gift deed. The earlier view that the State must first have the transfer avoided was not accepted. The controlling principle applied was that the revenue is entitled to attach property as belonging to the defaulter, leaving the transferee to pursue the statutory claim procedure or a civil suit if the transfer is genuine. The distinction drawn in earlier decisions restricting recovery was not followed.

Conclusion: The attachment was valid and the State was entitled to proceed against the property notwithstanding the gift deed.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of a revision remedy under the Revenue Recovery Act barred the writ petition under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court accepted that a revision remedy was available to the writ petitioner under section 83(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. On that basis, the writ petition was treated as barred by the amended constitutional restriction on entertaining writ petitions where an effective alternative remedy existed.

Conclusion: The writ petition was barred by the alternative statutory remedy.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the order of the learned Judge was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for recovery of public dues, the revenue may attach property as belonging to the defaulter notwithstanding a prior transfer, leaving the transferee to establish title through the statutory claim process or civil proceedings; the availability of an effective alternative remedy can also bar writ relief.

---