2020 (9) TMI 639

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....titioner over his ancestral property having an extent of 0.2546 Hectares of landed property comprised in Survey No.112/1 of Choondal Village in the name of the Government under Section 50(2)(i) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act as bought-in-land for Re.1, is illegal and is liable to be set aside. 2. The petitioner states that he was the Proprietor of Classic Rubbers and an assessee of sales tax. The business failed and sales tax for the years 1990-2000, 1993-1994, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 remained unpaid. Respondents 6 and 7-Tax Officers fixed the liability of the petitioner at Rs. 21,62,386/-. At the instance of respondents 6 and 7, respondents 2 to 5 initiated revenue recovery proceedings to realise the sales tax dues. The pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt by 31.12.2017. The petitioner approached this Court apprehending that even if he pays the amount, the respondents may not re-convey the bought-in-land to the petitioner. 5. When this Writ Petition came up for hearing, this Court passed an interim order on 18.12.2017 to the effect that payment if any made by the petitioner in terms of Ext,P4 order will be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the petitioner remitted the amount demanded as per Ext.P4 before 31.12.2017 as evidenced by Ext.P5 series receipts. The petitioner has also remitted collection charges in respect of the revenue recovery proceedings as per Ext.P6. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) Advocate Moham....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....demarcate and take possession of the property of the petitioner. 10. At any rate, the petitioner has approached the respondents submitting himself to the Amnesty Scheme. The respondents by themselves permitted the petitioner to participate in the Amnesty Scheme and intimated to the petitioner the amounts to be paid to the Government to settle the issue of sales tax arrears. Such intimation was not pursuant to any orders of this Court. This Court passed an interim order only 18.07.2017 making it clear that payment made by the petitioner in terms of Ext.P4 intimation of the State Tax Officer will be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court. 11. This Court had occasion to consider a similar issue in Savithammal R. v. Tahsildar, U....