IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 613 of 2011(B) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- P.ISMAIL, S/O.LATE SRI.UMMER, AGED 53 YEARS, BEEBIYAS, P.O.NEW MAHE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER SRI.T.P.SAJID SMT.P.VANDANA SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AA), CIRCLE-IV, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 2. TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, THALASSERY-670 101. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.613 of 2011-B. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging Exts.P2 to P4 and Ext.P5 assessment orders and Exts.P8 to P13 consequent demands. Revenue recovery steps initiated pursuant to Exts.P18 and P19 notices are also under challenge. Yet another relief sought for is for a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P7 application filed seeking benefit under the Amnesty Scheme and also to permit the petitioner to file fresh application for availing benefit under the scheme in question. 2. It is evident that the petitioner is in arrears of sales tax with respect to the years 2000-'01 to 2004-'05. It is evident that assessments were challenged by the petitioner in appeals and the appellate authority had granted relief with respect to assessments pertaining to WP(C).No.613 of 2011-B. -: 2 :- certain years. Grievance of the petitioner is that modified orders of assessments were not issued in view of the relief granted by the appellate authority. It is also contended that recovery steps now initiated on the basis of Exts.P18 and P19, is against a property which belonged to the deceased mother of the petitioner upon which the petitioner has got only a fractional right. Regarding the benefit of Amnesty Scheme, contention of the petitioner is that, the first respondent has not considered Ext.P7 application and no decision has been taken with respect to allowing benefits under the Amnesty Scheme, for settlement of the arrears. 3. In this regard it is noticed that the petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing WP (C).No.3598/2010. It is mentioned that the said writ petition was withdrawn on the basis of the submission that the matter has become infructuous. According to the petitioner, he had effected considerable payments thereafter and the balance principal amount without WP(C).No.613 of 2011-B. -: 3 :- interest will come to Rs.15,29,652/- only. The revenue recovery steps is initiated mainly on the ground that the property is in the ownership of the petitioner. The property in question is worth more than Rs.One Crore, whereas the revenue recovery proceedings is initiated only for an amount of Rs.17,38,402/-. 4. Considering the contentions raised, I noticed that in the earlier writ petition, WP(C).No.3598/2010, a counter- affidavit was filed on behalf of the first respondent, wherein it is specifically stated that the modified assessment orders were already issued and those orders were sent to the petitioner through registered post. But the postal covers were returned unserved since the petitioner has not accepted the same. Further it is mentioned that no application as that of Ext.P7 seeking benefit of Amnesty Scheme was received, as contended in the writ petition. Considering the above situation it is evident that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the revenue WP(C).No.613 of 2011-B. -: 4 :- recovery steps were initiated without modifying the assessments. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the revenue recovery steps were initiated only with respect to the amounts due as per the modified orders of assessments. 5. With respect to recovery steps initiated against the joint property, it is clarified that the 2nd respondent as well as other officers of the revenue recovery department, who is pursuing steps on the basis of Exts.P18 and P19, should ensure that only the fractional share of the petitioner alone is proceeded against, if the petitioner has got only fractional share in the property in question. It is pertinent to note that at present only demand notices under Sec.7 and 34 alone were issued. Needless to say that before proceedings with further steps for attachment and sale of the property, the authority concerned shall make due verification in this regard. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks direction WP(C).No.613 of 2011-B. -: 5 :- from this Court for a consideration and disposal of Ext.P7 application and to allow the benefits of Amnesty Scheme. As observed above, in view of the contentions raised by the first respondent to the effect that such an application was not received, I am not in a position to issue any positive direction. However, it is evident that the Amnesty Scheme is in force till 31.3.2011, in view of the amendments of Sec.23B of the KGST Act. It is always left open to the petitioner to approach the first respondent seeking such benefits. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further seeks direction to the effect of appropriating amounts remitted after disposal of the earlier writ petition towards the amount which will be determined under the Amnesty Scheme. But I am of the considered opinion that such positive direction could not be issued since there exists no order allowing Amnesty Scheme and since the receipt of Ext.P7 application is denied by the first respondent. WP(C).No.613 of 2011-B. -: 6 :- However, in this regard, it is left open to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy before the first respondent. 8. In the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of with the observations as above regarding the revenue recovery steps as well as regarding consideration benefits under the Amnesty Scheme. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-