IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31535 of 2010(N) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JUSTIN SCARIA, S/O. SCARIA, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT VAREEKKAL HOUSE, ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.UNISE MOHAMED KUNJU, SRI.SAKIR.K.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN-686 141. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAKKULAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 661. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 141. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN-686 141. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 016. R1 TO R5 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 31535 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner was the proprietor of an establishment, “M/s. Vareekkal Traders, a firm engaged in the business of Palm Oil , Coconut oil, Lamp oil, etc. According to the petitioer, the business was closed in the year 2008 and the petitioner had submitted 'nil' return for the purpose of assessment for the period from May, 2008 to September, 2008. However, the assessments were completed by the 1st respondent with respect to various periods from August 2006 onwards till March, 2009 as per Ext.P1 series orders. It is stated that those assessments were finalized behind back of the petitioner, without serving any notice on him. It is stated that the petitioner had entrusted the originals of Ext.P1 series orders with a Tax Consultant for filing appeal against such orders. Subsequently, it was realized that no such appeals were filed and the original of Ext.P1 series W.P.(C) No. 31535/2010 2 orders were misplaced in the office of the Tax Consultant. The whereabouts of the said consultant was not traceable and the petitioner was not in a position to recover the originals of Ext.P1 series. According to the petitioner, he submitted Ext.P2 application before the 1st respondent for getting certified copies of Ext.P1 series orders. In the meanwhile recovery steps were initiated on issuing Ext.P3 series notices under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and immovable property belonging to the petitioner was proclaimed for sale under Ext.P5 notice. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner is approaching this court seeking direction restraining the recovery steps and also seeking a direction against the 1st respondent for issuing certified copies of Ext.P1 series orders of assessments. 2. In a statement filed on behalf of respondents it is averred that pursuant to Ext.P5 notice, the property was already auctioned on 14-10-2010 and the bid was fixed in favour of one Mr.Raju Zacharia, brother of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.12 lakhs and the bidder had already W.P.(C) No. 31535/2010 3 remitted 15% of the amount. It is submitted by learned Government Pleader that as per the instructions received, Ext.P2 petition has not been received in the office of the 1st respondent. 3. Petitioner has filed applications seeking to implead the auction purchaser as well as the District Collector with a view to challenge the auction sale conducted in this regard. Having considered the factual position as above, I am of the opinion that it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies against the sale as provided under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It is left open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority seeking to set aside the sale, if he is aggrieved. 4. With respect to the liability, the petitioner has to seek appropriate remedy as provided under the statute, after getting certified copies of the assessment orders. If the petitioner makes a proper application before the 1st respondent and remits the necessary fee, the 1st respondent shall issue certified copies of Ext.P1 series orders of W.P.(C) No. 31535/2010 4 assessments, within one week from the date of receipt of such application. On receipt of such copies, it is left open to the petitioner to invoke the appellate remedy. 5. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions, reserving rights of the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority seeking to set aside the sale, as well as the rights to approach the appellate authority. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.