2020 (9) TMI 639 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Recovery of tax dues (arrears) - Validity of Sale of property in public auction - Improper bidding of the 1/5th share of the petitioner over his ancestral property - Section 50(2)(i) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act - HELD THAT - The attachment of the property and the sale thereof held on 03.10.2008 were in respect of undivided share of the petitioner in the property. The petitioner was not in actual and exclusive possession of the property when the sale was effected and the Government purchased the land. The pleadings would show that the petitioner has been trying to raise funds sufficient for the payment of sales tax arrears. Ext.P2 letter dated 25.03.2017 would show that the petitioner has been making representation to the respondents for reconveyance of the property - At any rate, the petitioner has approached the respondents submitting himself to the Amnesty Scheme. The respondents by themselves permitted the petitioner to participate in the Amnesty Scheme and intimated to the petitioner the amounts to be paid to the Government to settle the issue of sales tax arrears. Such intimation was not pursuant to any orders of this Court. This Court passed an interim order only 18.07.2017 making it clear that payment made by the petitioner in terms of Ext.P4 intimation of the State Tax Officer will be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court. In this case, though the State bought the land for a consideration of Re.1, what was bought by the State is only the undivided share of the property belonging to the petitioner. The State was not at any point of time had the actual the possession of the land. In the meanwhile, the respondents permitted the petitioner to participate in the Amnesty Scheme and offered to settle the sales tax disputes by the petitioner paying an amount of ₹ 9,58,610/-, as per Ext.P4. In the circumstances, equity demands that the undivided share purchased by the respondents is restituted to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to issue orders immediately and take action to return the property covered by Ext.P1 order, after cancelling the sale and orders of confirmation, if any.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to sale proceedings and improper bidding over ancestral property under Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash Exhibit-P1 and declared the sale proceedings and the improper bidding of his 1/5th share of ancestral property illegal. The petitioner, a failed business owner with unpaid sales tax dues, had his property attached for recovery. The undivided property was auctioned, and the Government bought the 1/5th share for Re.1. Despite applying for Amnesty Scheme and requesting re-conveyance, no final decision was made by the authorities. The petitioner approached the Court fearing non-reconveyance even after settling dues under the Amnesty Scheme.

The Government argued that the petitioner's delay in seeking relief after the sale in 2008 warranted dismissal. The petitioner, not in exclusive possession during the sale, made efforts to raise funds and requested re-conveyance. The Government did not take possession of the property post-sale, and no suit was filed for demarcation. The Court noted the petitioner's participation in the Amnesty Scheme based on Government's intimation, not Court orders.

Referring to precedent cases, the Court highlighted that when a defaulter pays dues accepted by the Government, principles of proprietary estoppel apply, entitling re-conveyance. The Court emphasized that when the basis of sale is undermined by payment, the State must return the land to the original owner. In this case, the State purchased only the petitioner's share, never possessing it. Given the petitioner's participation in the Amnesty Scheme, equity demanded restitution of the purchased share.

Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, directing immediate action to cancel the sale and confirmations, returning the property within two months.