TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (2) TMI 458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner did not pay the tax assessed and no stay was obtained from the appellate authority, the first respondent enforced the recovery and brought 1.88 acres of property belonging to the petitioner for sale for recovery of the amount. Since there were no bidders in the sale proceedings, the State Government purchased the property for paise 10 under section 50(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of these proceedings. Subsequently, one of the appeals was allowed and consequently, the amount payable by the petitioner was considerably reduced. Pursuant to that order of the appellate authority, no notice was issued to the petitioner for reassessment. Long thereafter, in 1998, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice after receiving the due amount to the Government. (iii) A writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ or order declaring that fixation of cut-off date in exhibit P9 and P10 Government orders is arbitrary and unconstitutional. (iv) An order of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to exhibit P4 order including that of taking possession of 1.88 acres of land in R.S. No. 294/2 of Muttathodi Village in Kasaragod Taluk from the petitioner." The petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition and his legal heirs have come on record as additional petitioners to prosecute the writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, all along and even now the petitioner has been and is in possession of the property in question and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tained any stay of the assessment orders and, subsequent appellate orders will not affect the validity of the sale as such, which was conducted validly when the same was made. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The original order of assessment was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal by exhibit P1 order. Pursuant to the appellate order, at least in respect of one appeal, the first respondent, as the assessing officer, was bound to issue fresh notice to the petitioner, compute the tax due in accordance with the appellate order and then issue a demand notice to the petitioner demanding the reduced tax due. The learned Government Pleader was not able to satisfy me that that procedure has been complied with and even today....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same and there is no order of assessment even as on today. As such, the Government cannot rely upon the sale on the ground that the petitioner did not seek reconveyance of the property within two years. There is another illegality also in these proceedings. In the decision in Subaida Beevi's case [2010] 1 KLT 913, a Division Bench of this court has held that when the Government purchases the property under section 50(2) for recovery of the amounts due to a requisitioning authority, the Government has to purchase the property in the name of the authority to whom the amount is due and not in the name of the Government. Here the amount is due to the Central Government as is clear from section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Therefore,....