IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15 of 2011(B) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMT.KIRAN GUPTA, PROPRIETRIX, MS.REVLON ENTERPRISES (NOW DEFUNCT), 4/147, AKASH DEEP, JAWAHAR NAGAR, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-I COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE-673006. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), KOZHIKODE-673006. 3. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KOZHIKODE-673020. 4. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), VATAKARA - 673 101. BY SRI.GOVT.PLEADER C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.15 of 2011-B ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8 order issued by the 1st respondent, through which a request made by the petitioner to extent the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme as provided under Section 23B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, was declined. On a perusal of Ext.P8 it is evident that the petitioner is in default of payment of tax due with respect to the years 1992-93, 1993-94. The 1st respondent noticed that the arrear was sought to be realised through revenue recovery steps and in that process one property belonging to the petitioner was purchased by the Government on payment of Rs.1/- invoking provisions contained under Section 50(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. In Ext.P8, the request for availing benefit of the Scheme was declined for the reason that the benefit could not be extended to cases where any property was purchased by the Government and kept custody as bought- W.P(C) No.15 of 2011-B 2 in-land. 2. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 on the ground that the reasons stated for denial of amnesty benefit is totally unsustainable. Going by the provisions contained in Section 23B there is no such restriction imposed, is the contention. 3. While considering the above contention, I am of the view that the denial of the benefit was on a totally wrong premise. Going by Section 23B it is evident that the amnesty benefit could not be granted in cases where the defaulter is having property worth more in value than the amount in default. When the Government had purchased the land in question invoking Section 50(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the defaulter become divested with the property and the said asset is no more available in the ownership and possession of the defaulter. Whatever be the value of the bought-in-land, considering its market price, the property is remaining as a property belonging to the Government. Nearly because the petitioner may raise a W.P(C) No.15 of 2011-B 3 claim seeking re-conveyance of such land, it could not be said that it is an asset in the ownership or possession of the defaulter and on that premise the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme could not be denied. Hence the denial under Ext.P8 on assigning the reason that the claim of the petitioner is not one coming within the purview of Section 23B, could not be sustained in the eye of law. 4. In this writ petition, the petitioner is also challenging validity of Section 50(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Contention in this regard are left open for agitation in appropriate proceedings. The petitioner also seek a declaration to the effect that the provisions under Section 23B is unconstitutional as far as it relates to bought- in-land. In view of my observations as above, I am of the view that the relief sought for is misconceived. 5. Considering merits of the issue as observed above, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 1st respondent. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and W.P(C) No.15 of 2011-B 4 Ext.P8 is hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner submitted seeking benefits under the Amnesty Scheme, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab