IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 17969 of 2005(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ZEENATH HANEEFA, W/O.LATE MUHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 59 YEARS, FATHIMA MANZIL, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, PUNALUR. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), PATHANAPUTAM TALUK, PUNALUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 25.8.2003 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 17969 OF 200 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of sales tax due from her late husband. The arrears is stated to be Rs. 74,240/- and it pertains to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1982-83. Even though petitioner filed suit before the civil court, the same was unsuccessful. Having regard to the fact that liability is 24 years old and the defaulter himself died 20 years back, and in view of the Amnesty benefit granted to other dealers to settle liability, I feel petitioner can be granted some incentives to settle liability. If the petitioner clears the arrears and interest equivalent to the amount of arrears before 15.5.2008, respondents will treat the same as sufficient discharge liability and thereafter withdraw the entire recovery proceedings. However, if the petitioner is unable to settle the liability, there will be direction to the petitioner to produce title deeds before the third respondent to verify petitioner's claim that the property is self- acquired property or not or devolved upon her from her late husband, 2 namely, the defaulter. If the property is not transferred by the defaulter to the petitioner, which is hit by Section 44 of the RR Act or the property is not inherited from her late husband, then the property should be excluded from the recovery proceedings. However, if property is inherited from the defaulter, or if property is transferred by the defaulter without adequate consideration to avoid recovery, then recovery can be proceeded against the property claimed by the petitioner. Adjudication in this regard arises only if the petitioner fails to settle liability by 15.5.2008. W.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge 3