IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 9495 of 2011(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- MEENA KUMARI, AGED 41, W/O. ARUN KUMAR, ASHIANA, PISHARIKOVIL ROAD, EROOR P.O. TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 306. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN NUMPELI (JUNIOR), SMT.K.M.MINIMOL. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682 011. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NADAM VILLAGE, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 306. 3. ARUNKUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER, ARUMA SANITATIONS, SANTHA NIVAS, EROOR, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 306. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 9495 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the wife of the 3rd respondent against whom revenue recovery steps were initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 notice. The default pertains to arrears of sales tax due from a firm to which the 3rd respondent was the Managing Partner. Contention of the petitioner is that she is not in any way liable for payment of the amounts sought to be recovered. Petitioner is challenging the action proposed for attachment and sale of movables belonging to her contained in her parental house wherein she is residing. According to her, the property wherein the house is situated is set apart to her share by her mother and brother, and that the said property is no way liable to be proceeded against for realising any amount due from the 3rd respondent. 2. Learned Government Pleader, on the basis of instructions, submitted that the petitioner was also a partner of the firm which had defaulted payment of tax and hence the petitioner is also liable for payment of the amounts under WP(C) .9495/2011 2 demand. However, it is evident from Ext.P2 notice, which was issued under section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, that the steps were initiated only in the name of the 3rd respondent. It is not legally sustainable to proceed against properties belonging to the petitioner without serving proper demand notice on her. Hence I am of the view that the impugned action for attachment and sale of the properties belonging to the petitioner, is unsustainable for lack of proper notice. 3. Under the above circumstances respondents 1 and 2 are restrained from proceeding against properties belonging to the petitioner, both movable and immovable, on the basis of Ext.P2 demand. 4. However it is made clear that if the petitioner is liable for payment of the amounts due, action of recovery can be initiated against her after compliance of the procedure contemplated and on serving proper demand notices as stipulated under the statute. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .9495/2011 3