TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (7) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceased assessee, Z. M. Paret, and that no tax recovery proceedings could be taken against the petitioner and his properties in respect of the tax due from the late Z. M. Paret. There is also an alternate prayer for a direction to the first respondent to consider and investigate the claim petition, exhibit P-10, and also the objections, exhibits P-2 and P-5, and dispose of the same according to law. The case of the petitioner in this original petition is that the petitioner is not the legal representative of deceased, Z. M. Paret, for recovery of amounts due from whom exhibit P-1 notice is issued. It is stated by the petitioner that he is neither the legal representative nor a person on whom the estate of the deceased, Z. M. Paret, devol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bit P-5, giving all the details regarding the property mentioned in exhibit P-4 and submitted that these properties were obtained by the petitioner about 30 years before the death of Z. M. Paret and could not be deemed to pass on the death of the deceased. It is further stated that the petitioner is not in possession and enjoyment of any of the properties including the estate of the deceased, Z. M. Paret. On receipt of exhibit P-6 attachment order the petitioner applied to the second respondent-Income-tax Officer, Ward-III, Kottayam, requiring him to furnish copies of the assessment orders and certificates issued by the second respondent to ascertain the petitioner's liability in respect of the above arrears evidenced by exhibit P-7. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ession of some items of immovable properties, comprised in the estate of the late Z. M. Paret as per rule 85, a person, who without claiming title either as executor, administrator or heir, but who is in possession of the deceased's estate can also be treated as a legal representative. It is also stated that Sri K. V. Pothen who was the original executor of the late Sri Z. M. Paret subsequently died and hence on his death the petitioner can be proceeded against as one of the legal representatives. Since the petitioner himself had admitted that the claim petition filed by him is pending before the Tax Recovery Officer, it is premature to approach this court invoking the special jurisdiction of the court under article 226 of the Constitution ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted in spite of the very detailed replies evidenced by exhibits P-2 and P-5 submitted by the petitioner before the first respondent. The further complaint of the petitioner is that in spite of exhibit P-10 claim petition as contemplated under rule 11 of the Act filed by him before the second respondent, the second respondent has not so far conducted any enquiry as contemplated therein. Learned counsel also submitted that even if the petitioner has got some of the items of properties which originally belonged to the deceased, Z. M. Paret, long before 30 years before the death of Paret, the petitioner has become the owner of the property by adverse possession and limitation and since he had prescribed title to the property long before the is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll these matters can be considered in the said petition. I have considered the matter. The petitioner is aggrieved by exhibits P-1 and P-6 notices issued by the first respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 28,090 with interest being arrears of tax due from the late Z. M. Paret. The petitioner had filed exhibits P-2 and P-5 replies contending that he is not a legal representative of the deceased, Z. M. Paret, and the legal representatives are the persons mentioned in the probate application and that they are the only persons who are entitled to the estate of the deceased, Z. M. Paret. Learned counsel also pointed out that the two items of properties referred to in exhibit P-6 attachment order are properties, which were obtained by the pe....