IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 10389 of 2011(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.A.RUKHIYA ABDUL, W/O.LATE K.V.ABDUL, AGED 48 YEARS, KADAVIL VALAPPIL HOUSE, AYILAKKAD, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (H), TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (KVAT), MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 101. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 577. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANAKKARA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 551. 7. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VATTAMKULAM VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 578. 8. THE SALE TAX OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 101. R1 TO R8 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.10389/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, EDAPPAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED, 13/11/2006. P2 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED, 23/4/2003. P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED, 17/9/2010 IN WP(C)NO.6918/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P4 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED, 18/4/2008. P5 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED, 1/9/2008 TO THE PETITIONER. P6 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED, 2/2/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 10389 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a defaulter in payment of tax under the KGST and CST Acts. According to the petitioner, although the registration was in the name of the petitioner, the business was conducted by her husband, who is no more and the business has been stopped also. For recovery of the arrears of tax, the petitioner's property was proceeded against and the property was purchased by the Government in the auction for ` 1/- on 28.3.2003. The petitioner now submits that the petitioner has six daughters, four of which, are unmarried and this Court may direct the respondents to take a lenient view. The petitioner approached the Government for amnesty scheme, which was rejected by Ext.P5 order on the ground that since the Government has already purchased the land, no amnesty scheme is available. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs; “i) Call for the entire records leading up to Exhibit P5 and quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders of (sic) directions commanding the respondents not to proceed with any recovery proceedings against the petitioner, after the purchase of land as bought in land by the government. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders of (sic) directions commanding the respondents to re-convey the properties of the petitioner comprised in R.S.No.42/5A having an extent of 20 cents of the Vattamkulam Village, on her clearing the entire dues towards sales tax. iv) Call for the entire records leading up to Exhibit P6 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other w.p.c.10389/11 2 appropriate writs, orders of directions;” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also, who opposes the prayers. According to him, the bought-in land cannot be re-conveyed to the party. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I am of opinion that the State can also exercise by some sympathy on persons who are unable to pay tax dues for circumstances beyond their control. The petitioner submits that her husband was actually conducting business, he was under treatment long for cerebral hemorrhage and ultimately, he died. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner could not pay the tax due in time. The petitioner now submits that the petitioner is prepared to pay the entire amounts within one month. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to see that the bought-in land is re- conveyed to the petitioner, if the petitioner pays the entire amounts due towards tax with interest etc. within one month from today. The competent among the respondents shall issue a communication to the petitioner specifying the amount payable by the petitioner within one week so that the petitioner can pay the amount as directed above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge