IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 11272 of 2004(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- HARINDRAN, S/O. DAMODARAN, AGED 49 MULLANKANDI HOUSE, AZHIKKAL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL, SRI.N.M.MADHU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SALES TAX OFFICER, KANNUR. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY NO.1, KANNUR. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 5. BASHEER, B.S.TRADING COMPANY, ULANJATHUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.11272/2004-P: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SLIP DTD. 06/08/99 ISSUED BY THE UNIT, PUNE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 26/08/2003 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 08/12/03 ISSUED BY DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R) TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 30/12/03 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 30/12/03 BEFORE THE C.I OF POLICE, VALAPATTANAM. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30/01/2004 ISSUED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 11272 OF 2004 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th November , 2010 J U D G M E N T The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the coercive proceedings pursued at the instance of the sales tax authorities in the course of steps for realisation of the tax arrears stated as due from the 5th respondent/defaulter. The case of the petitioner is that he is a total stranger to the proceedings and is in no way connected with the business of the 5th respondent nor has stood as surety to the 5th respondent in connection with the registration or business under any circumstance. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a physically impaired person, retired from the Military Service, having lost both his legs below the knees and is eking his livelihood on the basis of the disability pension sanctioned. The petitioner sold an extent of 6.07 Ares of land to one Padmavathy as per sale deed No.1778/1993 and making W.P.(C) No. 11272 OF 2004 2 use of the sale price obtained, he purchased an extent of 4.05 Ares of land as per the sale deed No.3109/1993 of SRO, Valapattanam. It was really a shock to the petitioner when he was served with a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act, asking him to satisfy the liability of nearly ` 4,48,000/- which is stated as due from the 5th respondent, which made him to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition. 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 30.03.2004, the learned Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 and urgent notice was ordered to the 5th respondent. After hearing, this Court passed the following order: “2. Since the petitioner has denied security bond executed by him for granting sales-tax registration to the fifth respondent, there will be a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to proceed against the fifth respondent who is admittedly the defaulter for recovery including Section 65 proceedings. The recovery proceedings against the petitioner will remain stayed for W.P.(C) No. 11272 OF 2004 3 two months . The second respondent will file a statement and produce copy of the security bond stated to have been executed by the petitioner in Court on or before 18.05.2004. Post on 20.05.2004. The petitioner will produce copy of the order before the concerned authorities.” Subsequently on 21.05.2004, taking note of the fact that no progress was reported from the part of the respondents 1 to 4, the interim order was extended until further orders. The position has not improved in any manner even now, after expiry of 5 ½ years and the respondents 1 to 4 are still to produce a copy of the 'security bond' stated as executed by the petitioner; nor have they filed any statement or counter affidavit with regard to the specific averments raised in the Writ petition. In the above said circumstance, this Court does not find any reason to doubt the un-rebutted version of the petitioner and it is declared that the respondents 1 to 4 are not justified in W.P.(C) No. 11272 OF 2004 4 proceeding with Exts.P3 and P7 against the petitioner under any circumstance. It is open to the said respondents to proceed against the 5th respondent or the assets of the establishment in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, as already permitted by this Court vide the interim order dated 30.03.2004. It is also open to the State/Revenue to proceed against the concerned officers who are at fault, if at all any loss has been caused to the Revenue because of any callous indifference or inaction on the part of such officers with regard to realisation of revenue in relation to the subject matter involved in this Case. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk