IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36830 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ ANIL KUMAR T.R THEKKEPERUR HOUSE, BALAGRAM, KALLAR P.O., IDUKKI 685 552 BY ADV. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, NEDUMKANDAM. 2. THE TAHASILDAR (RR) UDUMBALCHOLA,NEUDUMKANDAM 685553 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, PAMAPADUMPARA , KALLAR, IDUKKI 685 552 4. GIGO FERNADES, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE KALLAR, P.O., K.P.COLONY, IDUKKI (DIST) BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.36830 of 2008-H. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the son of late Sri.Rabindran Nair, who had executed a security bond before the first respondent, along with another person, for the purpose of registration granted to the 4th respondent under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act). The said Sri.Rabindran Nair expired on 28.3.2007. Ext.P2 is the copy of the security bond furnished in this regard, which will reveal that the guarantee was only to the extent of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Grievance of the petitioner is that, after death of Sri.Rabindran Nair, his legal heirs including petitioner were issued with Ext.P3 demand notice, under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act demanding for payment of a sum of Rs.16,72,272/-, being arrears of tax due from the 4th respondent, for the periods of 1995-'96 and 1996-'97. WP(C).No.36830 of 2008-H. 2 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner had only executed Ext.P2 security bond guaranting payment of a sum of Rs.2.00,000/-. Therefore even assuming that the father of the petitioner was alive, Rs.2,00,000/- alone can be recovered from him. Further contention is that the security bond executed as early as on 5.2.1992 will be valid only during the period when the registration granted to the 4th respondent was alive. Since it is came to notice that the registration of the 4th respondent stands cancelled, the amount could not be recovered on the basis of the security bond. Yet another contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have taken any effective steps to recover the amounts from the 4th respondent, in spite of the fact that the 4th respondent is having sufficient assets, both movable and immovable. 3. Going by the contentions raised in the writ petition, it is evident that the security bond was executed only for a value of Rs.2,00,000/-. As such it is clear that the WP(C).No.36830 of 2008-H. 3 surety is liable for payment only to the extent of the value of the security bond, ie. upto Rs.2,00,000/-. Regarding contentions of the petitioner that the sum could not be recovered since the registration of 4th respondent is not in force, it is submitted by learned Government Pleader that the amount sought to be recovered pertains to arrears prior to the cancellation of registration. Even assuming that the security bond will not be in force after the cancellation of registration, it cannot be said that the amount is not recoverable since the arrears pertain to a period prior to cancellation of the registration. 4. Another aspect which is to be taken note of is that, the petitioner is one among the legal heirs of the surety. The legal heirs of the deceased would not be personally held liable for payment of any amount, unless any estate is inherited to them. However, it is pertinent to note that, before issuing notice against the legal heirs for recovery steps, none of the authorities have not taken the above WP(C).No.36830 of 2008-H. 4 aspects. Under such circumstances it is necessary to have an adjudication with respect to legal heirs of the deceased surety, before proceeding with any recovery steps. 5. Hence I am of the view that the demand raised under Ext.P3 is unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed. It will be left open to the petitioner to submit before the first respondent regarding details of the assets owned by the 4th respondent, who is the dealer in question. If any such details are furnished, the first respondent shall take effective steps for recovery of amounts by proceeding against such assets of the dealer. 6. Steps for recovery shall be initiated against the legal heirs of the deceased surety, only after issuing notice and only after conducting an adjudication regarding their liability, on affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. Needless to say that the petitioner will be at liberty to take all contentions before the first respondent. 7. Appropriation of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid WP(C).No.36830 of 2008-H. 5 by the petitioner during pendency of this writ petition, will be subject to further decision to be taken by the first respondent in accordance with the directions contained herein above. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-