IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 7436 of 2011(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANJANA J,AGED 39, W/O.AJITH KUMAR,R/A.GOKULAM,KADAKKAD, PANDALAM, PIN-689501 PATHANAMTHITTA BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.ANEESH JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(R.R) TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOORAMPALA, PANDALAM P.O.,PIN-689501 4. HARI G NAIR, AGED 46, S/O.LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, 395-BHAGTH SINGH COLONY, GRAIN MARKET P.O., JALANDHAR-844008,PUNJAB ADDL. RESPONDENT: * 5. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.31.3.2011 IN I.A.NO.5494/2011 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.7436 of 2011-D ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Apprehending coercive steps for attachment and sale of 80 cents of property covered by Ext.P1 document and Exts.P2 and P3 tax receipts, this writ petition is filed. The impugned steps were initiated pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6 series notices issued against the 4th respondent for realising arrears of sales tax due from a company M/s.Janco Dipped Products (Pvt.) Ltd. to which the 4th respondent is the managing partner. Contention of the petitioner is that the property covered by Exts.P1 to P3 documents is in no way liable to be proceeded against for realising the amounts in question. 2. It is evident that Exts.P5 and P6 notices were not issued in the name of the petitioner. As such the steps for attachment and sale of property belonging to her could not be initiated on the basis of Exts.P5 and P6. However, whether the petitioner is liable for payment of the amounts W.P(C) No.7436 of 2011-D 2 demanded and as to whether the said properties is liable to be proceeded against are matters which need be decided by the competent authority. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P7 objections before the 2nd respondent. It is for the 2nd respondent to conduct an adjudication on the matter and to decide whether the property in question is liable to be proceeded against or not. Under such circumstances I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to conduct an adjudication on the basis of Ext.P7 objections. 3. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to conduct an adjudication on the basis of Ext.P7 objections submitted by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the 4th respondent. A decision regarding liability of the petitioner and her properties shall be taken on the basis of the objections at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt a copy of this judgment. W.P(C) No.7436 of 2011-D 3 4. Needless to say that, further proceedings against the properties covered under Exts.P1 to P3 shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken as directed above. 5. However, it is made clear that this will not prevent the respondents from proceeding against any of the properties of the 4th respondent or that of the defaulter company. It is also made clear that if the petitioner is found liable for payment of the amounts, steps can be initiated after issuing proper notice against her, as contemplated under the statute. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab