IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 26TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 6119 of 2008(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.A.RUKHIYA ABDUL, W/O.LATE K.V.ABDUL, AGED 48 YEARS, KADAVIL VALAPPIL HOUSE, AYILAKKAD, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SRI.K.RAKESH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (H), TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SALE TAX OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.6119/2008 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, EDAPPAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH DTD. 13/11/2006. P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DTD. 23/04/2003. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No.6119 of 2008 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 17th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner was a registered dealer doing business in arecanuts, under the name and style “Haseena Trading Company”. According to her, even though the registration stands in her name, her deceased husband was looking after the business activities. Her husband fell seriously ill and ultimately died on 2-11-2006. According to the petitioner, no business was conducted by her after the year 1995. However, recovery proceedings was initiated for realizing amounts due under assessments completed by the KGST authorities, pertaining to different years. Immovable property having an extent of 20 cents comprised in R.S. No.42/5A of the Vattamkulam Village belonging to the petitioner was put for auction and the Government had purchased the property for an amount of Rs.1/- on 28-3-2003. It is stated that the auction was fixed by the R.D.O. vide order dated 29-9-2006. The petitioner submitted a representation before the 1st respondent to stay the W.P.(C) No. 6119/2008 2 confirmation, which was seen forwarded to the District Collector under Ext.p2 letter, calling for a report. According to the petitioner, in spite of receipt of Ext.P2, the District Collector has not submitted a report and no further action was taken by the 1st respondent also. It is stated that the property is still in the possession of the petitioner and that she is ready and willing to pay off the entire arrears, provided the penal interest is waived. The petitioner is seeking directions for re-conveyance of the property as well as for waiver of penal interest under the Amnesty Scheme. 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the representation, which was forwarded under Ext.P2 letter, was submitted seeking stay of confirmation of the sale on the ground that appeals/revisions were pending against the sales-tax assessments. But there was no serious attempt from the part of the petitioner to pursue such remedies, nor the petitioner had approached the Government seeking to set aside the sale by offering payment of the arrears. 3. However, I am not inclined to enter upon merits of the W.P.(C) No. 6119/2008 3 matter, since the petitioner has to approach the appropriate authorities seeking to set aside the sale and for re-conveyance of the property. 4. If the arrears need be considered for waiver under the Amnesty Scheme, the petitioner has to approach the authority in the Commercial Tax Department concerned, with proper application filed under the prescribed form, after complying with procedure prescribed under the scheme.Without resorting to remedies as stated above, the matter could not be considered in this writ petition. 5. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to approach the appropriate statutory authorities for redressal of her grievances. Needless to say that if any applications are submitted in this regard, the appropriate authorities shall consider the same and take a decisions thereof without further delay. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.