TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners should be relegated to the statutory revisional remedy under section 83 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act against the order passed in the revenue recovery proceedings. (ii) Whether the sealing and continued possession of the attached building by the revenue authorities was justified under the attachment provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioners should be relegated to the statutory revisional remedy under section 83 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act against the order passed in the revenue recovery proceedings.
Analysis: The dispute regarding the liability fastened on the petitioners and the validity of the steps taken in the revenue recovery proceedings involved matters that could be examined by the revisional authority. The impugned order was subject to revision under section 83, and the petitioners had an effective statutory remedy before that authority. The Court also noted that the questions now raised had to be considered by the proper authority on notice and after opportunity to produce relevant documents.
Conclusion: The petitioners were relegated to the revisional remedy under section 83, with liberty to challenge the order before the Commissioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the sealing and continued possession of the attached building by the revenue authorities was justified under the attachment provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.
Analysis: Section 36 contemplates attachment by affixture of notice and service of copy on the defaulter, and the statutory scheme did not disclose any authority for sealing the building or retaining possession at that stage when the property had not been brought to sale. In the circumstances, and pending further proceedings, the petitioners were entitled to restoration of possession of the building for the time being.
Conclusion: The sealing and retention of possession were held unjustified, and the first petitioner was directed to be put back in possession of the building.
Final Conclusion: The common judgment gave the petitioners a partial substantive relief by restoring possession of the building and by preserving their right to pursue the statutory revision, while leaving the revenue recovery proceedings otherwise open to be dealt with by the competent authority.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an efficacious revisional remedy, the Court may decline immediate interference and leave the parties to work out that remedy, and coercive steps not authorised by the attachment provision cannot be sustained.
TaxTMI 
