IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 20766 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.M.SHAILA, D/O.MUHAMMED SHAREEF, KUZHUVELIL HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA. BY ADV. MR. T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SALES TAX OFFICER, SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (RR), KANJIRAPPALLY. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KANJIRAPPALLY. 4. P.M.SUBAIR, SUBANI TIMBER, ERATTUPETTA. 5. T.M.JALALUDDHIN, S/O.HAJEE USAMEERANNAN, THENAMMACKAL, KANJIRAPPALLY. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 20766 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 25th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The property purchased by the petitioner from the 5th respondent (surety to the 4th respondent) is subjected to coercive steps under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, for realization of the 'sales tax arrears' due from the 4th respondent. The first respondent has filed a statement pointing out that, the 5th respondent had executed a 'Bond' much prior to the conveyance of the title to the petitioner and there is a total tax liability of Rs. 9,20,184/- in respect of the period from 1992 - 93 to 2004 - '05 from the 4th respondent, who is the defaulter. By virtue of the Bond executed by the 5th respondent, a surety to the 4th respondent, the liability was sought to be realized from the 5th respondent as well. It is by virtue of the liability created as above, on the basis of the Bond executed by the 5th respondent, who subsequently transferred the property in question to the petitioner thereafter, that the machinery under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act has been turned against the petitioner as well. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Bond amount is much less than the total liability sought to be recovered and WP (C) No. 20766 of 2009 : 2 : in turn, the properties purchased by the petitioner from the 5th respondent can be proceeded against only to the extent of liability as created under the Bond and nothing more. 4. This issue had come up for consideration before this Court on an earlier occasion and after referring to the relevant provisions of law including Rule 6 (2) (e) of the KGST Rules, this Court, as per judgment dated 2.6.2009 in WP (C) 5167 of 2008 has held that, the liability is to be confined to the amount covered by the Bond and that no wider liability can be sought to be fixed on the surety. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, it is hereby made clear that, the respondents are very much entitled to proceed against the properties conveyed by the 5th respondent to the petitioner, to the extent the 5th respondent has undertaken the liability to the Department as stipulated in the 'Bond' executed in this regard, demanding which, a notice shall be issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent, before proceeding with further R.R. steps. Considering the persuasive submissions made from the part of the petitioner that, the husband of the petitioner is no more and that the petitioner is already hit by much adverse circumstances, the liability to the extent as stated hereinbefore (as covered by the 'Bond' executed by the 5th respondent) is permitted to be cleared by way of 5 equal monthly installments; the first of which WP (C) No. 20766 of 2009 : 3 : shall be effected on or before the 15th day of serving the notice as above; to be followed by the remaining installments to be satisfied on before the 15th of the succeeding months. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd