IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 5458 of 2005(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ELEZABATH GEORGE, MADATHILACKAL HOUSE, FACTORY WARD, ALLEPPEY. BY ADV. MR. P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), AMBALAPPUZHA. 2. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALE TAX OFFICER, THALIPARAMBU, KANNUR. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. SOJAN JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 5458 OF 2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02.12.2002 EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.12.2002 EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 24.01.2005 EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO. 7658/1992 DATED 14.06.1996 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No . 5458 of 2005 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 20th October, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the revenue recovery proceedings vide Ext. P1 and P3 stating that a sum of Rs. 1,63,051/- is due to be satisfied, by virtue of her being a Director of the Company by name Malabar Estate Limited, who was a defaulter in respect of the tax liability payable to the State. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner became the Director of the Company only on 14.11.1981 and hence she is not liable to pay the tax assessed in respect of the assessment years 1961 - '62, 1962 - '63, 1966 - '67, 1970 - '71 and 1975 - '76. It is further contended that, the proceedings are barred by limitation, since the recovery proceedings are initiated after a quarter of century. It is the case of the petitioner that revenue recovery initiated against the husband of the petitioner was subjected to challenge by filing O.P. 7658 of 1992. After hearing both the sides, the impugned notices therein were set aside, as per Ext. P4 verdict. It is in respect of the very same cause of action, that the proceedings have been initiated W.P. (C) No. 5458 of 2005 : 2 : against the petitioner; which made her to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 3. True, a counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, referring to the sequence of events. On going through the contents, it is seen that the alleged liability is in respect of the assessment years 1961 - '62, 1962 - '63, 1966 - '67, 1970 - '71 and 1975 - '76. No where in the counter affidavit, has it the contention of the petitioner that she became the Director of the Company only during the period 1981 - '82, been rebutted. 4. Going by the undisputed pleadings, it remains a fact that the liability sought to be realized from the petitioner cannot be validly prosecuted in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in State of Kerala Vs. V.R. Kalliyanikutty (1999 (2) KLT 146 (SC), it being a time-barred debt. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The impugned proceedings are set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. No cost. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd