IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 28517 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.S.SUKUMARAN, MANAGING PARTNER, KUSHANA RUBBER WORKS, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD-678 021. BY ADVS. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 01. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 01. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD 01. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD 01. 5. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD 01. 6. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, II CIRCLE, PALAKKAD 01. 7. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUDUSSERI CENTRAL VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 21. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.28517 of 2010-L ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Managing Partner of a firm which established an industrial unit in the 'Industrial Development Area' at Kanjikode, Palakkad. The unit became defunct since 1999 onwards, but revived functioning during the year 2005. With respect to settlement of arrears of sales tax due from the firm, application was submitted before the 6th respondent, seeking benefits under the Amnesty Scheme, as provided under Section 23B of the KGST Act. The said application was rejected as per Ext.P3 letter assigning the reason that, the amount in arrears, “are in the stage of bought-in-land by the revenue authorities”. 2. It is stated that with respect to amounts due for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90, revenue recovery steps were initiated against the petitioner, and the industrial land of the unit was attached and put to public auction. Invoking Section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the W.P(C) No.28517 of 2010-L 2 Government had purchased the land for a sum of Rs.1/-, on 11.11.1999. Subsequently, the sale was confirmed as per the order of the Sub Collector, Palakkad issued dated 10.12.1999. 3. According to the petitioner, the industrial land in question, which was purchased by the Government was not a land upon which the petitioner was having title. It is stated that the land in question was the property of the Industries Department. Eventhough the petitioner had remitted value of the land to the Industries Department in instalments, the Revenue Department has not transferred the title, on issuing 'patta' for assignment. It is stated that, the authorities of the Industries Department had taken up the matter with the 1st respondent and it was clarified that the land in question belonged to the Industries Department. 4. However, a request submitted by the petitioner for re-conveyance of the land was rejected by the 1st respondent stating the reason that the re-conveyance can be effected only if such application made within a period of W.P(C) No.28517 of 2010-L 3 two years, as stipulated by the Government in a circular issued in this regard. 5. Question to be considered in this writ petition is as to whether the rejection of application submitted for the benefit of Amnesty Scheme was legal and justified. The benefit was denied to the petitioner solely on the ground that, property belonging to the petitioner was taken over by the Government as bought-in-land. The question remains as to whether the petitioner was the owner of the property and as to whether the Government was justified in purchasing the land invoking Section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The dispute in this regard need not be resolved in this writ petition, because that is not the issue involved herein. Whether the denial of benefit under the Amnesty Scheme was justified, even assuming that the property was belonging to the petitioner. In such a case the property became vested in the Government, when it was purchased invoking Section 50 and when the said purchase was confirmed by the competent authority. Going by W.P(C) No.28517 of 2010-L 4 provisions contained in Section 23B, the benefit of Amnesty Scheme could not be denied merely because certain properties belonging to the defaulter had already been purchased by the Government under Section 50. Once the sale is complete ownership of the petitioner will stand transferred to the Government and such property can never be construed as an asset belonging to the petitioner. In such case the petitioner cannot be considered as a person having assets, having valuation of more than the amount for which the arrears need be settled under the scheme. 6. Therefore, there is no justification in denying benefit of Amnesty Scheme, on the ground that the revenue recovery proceedings had culminated in purchase of land belonging to the petitioner under Section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Further, even if the Government had purchased the land invoking Section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the petitioner continues to be a defaulter and he is in arrears of the entire amount, less the amount of Rs.1/- for which the land was purchased. W.P(C) No.28517 of 2010-L 5 Therefore, the request for benefit under the Amnesty Scheme could not be denied. On a perusal of the relevant provisions, it is evident that the reason mentioned in Ext.P3 is not sustainable. 7. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P3 is unsustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, Ext.P3 is hereby quashed. The 6th respondent is directed to re-consider the application for Amnesty Scheme, on the basis of the observations made above and to pass orders thereon, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 8. It is made clear that, I have not expressed any opinion with respect to the right of the petitioner for getting the bought-in-land re-conveyed or with respect to rights of the Government in purchasing the land invoking Section 50 of the Act. It is for the Government to take appropriate decision based on communications issued by the authorities W.P(C) No.28517 of 2010-L 6 of the Industries Department. It is also left open to the petitioner to approach the Government seeking re- conveyance, if the Government takes a stand that the purchase under Section 50 was valid, after remittance of the arrears under the Amnesty Scheme. However, it is left open to the Government to take a decision in such case depending upon the policy of the Government in such matters. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.28517 of 2010-L 7