2018 (12) TMI 1014 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Recovery proceedings - KVAT Act - petitioner s contention is that the petitioner has inherited no property from his father. Therefore, he cannot be subjected to the recovery proceedings - Held that - Indeed, the petitioner himself is not an assessee, nor has he owned any tax arrears to the Department. Instead, he was asked to answer the claim against his deceased father. The statutory mandate under Section 27 is unmistakable. A legal heir or representative is liable to answer the claim raised against the deceased only to the extent he has succeeded to the deceased person s estate. At any rate, that is a disputed question of fact - it will suffice if the District Collector, the 7th respondent, passes orders expeditiously on the petitioner s Ext.P9 application. If he has already heard him. Otherwise, he may hear the petitioner on the Ext.P9 and pass orders - petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Recovery proceedings against legal heirs under the KVAT Act.
2. Consideration of stay petition by appellate authority.
3. Assailing a notice from the Tahsildar in recovery proceedings.
4. Liability of a legal heir for tax arrears of deceased father under Section 26(7) of the KVAT Act.
5. Efficacious remedy of approaching the District Collector for determining liability.
6. Disputed question of fact regarding liability of legal heir.
7. Delay in passing orders by the District Collector on a representation.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of recovery proceedings against legal heirs under the KVAT Act. The petitioner, a legal heir of the deceased assessee, challenged the recovery proceedings initiated by the Revenue. The Court highlighted that a legal heir is liable to answer the claim against the deceased only to the extent he has succeeded to the deceased person's estate, emphasizing the statutory mandate under Section 27.

2. The petitioner also raised the issue of consideration of his stay petition by the appellate authority. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions of the conditional stay granted by the appellate authority, which resulted in the stay not coming into operation. This led to the continuation of recovery proceedings by the Revenue administration of the District.

3. Another issue addressed in the judgment is the petitioner's challenge to a notice from the Tahsildar in the recovery proceedings. The petitioner contended that he had not inherited any property from his father and therefore should not be subjected to the recovery proceedings. The Court considered this contention in light of the legal provisions and factual circumstances.

4. The liability of the petitioner as a legal heir for the tax arrears of his deceased father under Section 26(7) of the KVAT Act was a crucial aspect of the case. The Government Pleader argued that the petitioner was liable to answer the Department's claim, while the petitioner's counsel emphasized the absence of property inheritance. The Court examined this issue in detail, emphasizing the need for a factual determination regarding the extent of the petitioner's liability.

5. The judgment also discussed the efficacious remedy available to the petitioner of approaching the District Collector to determine his liability for the tax arrears. The Court directed the District Collector to pass orders expeditiously on the petitioner's representation, considering the submissions made by the petitioner and other legal heirs.

6. The delayed decision by the District Collector on the petitioner's representation raised concerns regarding the resolution of the disputed question of fact regarding the petitioner's liability. The Court emphasized the importance of timely adjudication by the District Collector to clarify the petitioner's position in the recovery proceedings.

7. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction for the District Collector to pass orders promptly on the petitioner's representation. Until such orders are issued, the respondent authorities were instructed to defer coercive steps in the recovery proceedings. The judgment focused on ensuring a fair and expeditious resolution of the legal issues concerning the petitioner's liability as a legal heir under the KVAT Act.

← Previous Next →