IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 635 of 2008(T) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13185/2008 Dated 16/04/2008 .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VINDO CHANDRAN. RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.A.JALEEL, SHAHIL CASHEWS, VILANGARA P.O., UMMANNOOR, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. K.RAMADEVI, VISHNU VIHAR, THEKKEVILA, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV.SRI.S.A.RAZZAK. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2008, ALONG WITH COC 722/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== R.P.No.635 of 2008 in W.P.(C)No.13185 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008. ORDER This is a review petition filed by the revenue officials, who are respondents in the writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner claims that he has a licence or lease from the third respondent, the holder of the estate of late Mohanan Pillai, the owner of the cashew factory in question. He was an assessee under the sales tax laws. After his demise, the third respondent has been treated as a deemed assessee for the purpose of KGST Act, 1963. Such assessment proceedings for different assessment years are pending at different stages before the assessing authority, appellate authority, revisional authority etc. With the passage of time, the third respondent in the writ RP635/08 -:2:- petition has also chosen to take the benefit of the amnesty scheme extended by the Government and has made different applications. This means that a resolution of the disputes between the third respondent and the State relatable to fiscal demands referable to KGST Act would stand concluded if the request of the third respondent for the benefit of the amnesty scheme is appropriately extended and enjoyed by the third respondent. 3. Since the writ petitioner's contention is that the third respondent had granted lease, the interim order sought to be reviewed was issued directing entrustment of the factory premises to the petitioners on execution of bond etc. for the cost of the movables therein and such possession was to be given if the third respondent in the writ petition does not object to that course. 4. There are controversies between the review RP635/08 -:3:- petitioners and the writ petitioner as to whether the bond was furnished as required by law and as to whether the necessary documents in support of the bond were also produced. But the fact remains that the third respondent in the writ petition has come on record with the counter affidavit without disputing the claim of the writ petitioner on the basis of the licence or lease. It is clarified that I am not adjudicating on the quality of the transaction between the writ petitioner and the third respondent in the writ petition, particularly as to whether any entrustment is by way of licence or lease. 5. The review petition is generated essentially on the basis of Contempt Case (Civil) No.722 of 2008 filed charging the official respondents in the writ petition of having violated the direction to hand over possession. RP635/08 -:4:- 6. In the light of what is stated above, further instructions were obtained by the learned special Government Pleader for Taxes as directed by me and it is stated that the proceedings under the amnesty scheme is likely to be concluded without much delay. 7. The facts noticed above would show that even if there is a demand by treating it either the third respondent in the writ petition or her late husband as the defaulter and even if any attachment has been made on the immovable property, including the cashew factory, such attachments will continue to run notwithstanding the induction of the writ petitioner as a licensee or tenant, which would, on facts, generate some income for the third respondent in the writ petition and her children to sustain. It is stated that late Mohanan Pillai had committed suicide owing to financial problems. RP635/08 -:5:- 8. The order sought to be reviewed is clear and specific. It is not vitiated by any error. It therefore does not call for any review. It needs to be clarified that the stay order, when given effect to, will not, in any manner, impair any attachment already made by the revenue authorities, however that, no such attachment shall be used to run against the interest of the writ petitioner to come into occupation and continue to be so, subject to any sale or any distress action that may follow at a later point of time. This review petition is hence closed with the aforesaid direction. It is further directed that the reliefs sought for by the third respondent under the amnesty scheme shall be expedited and a decision shall be taken without delay. All assessment proceedings shall also be expedited to achieve this end. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, sl/030708 Judge.