2018 (5) TMI 372 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Lifting of attachment over the property - Held that - the liability of the first petitioner under the Act is only about ₹ 21,00,000/-, the said liability of the first petitioner has not become conclusive, the property of the second petitioner which the petitioners are offering as a security for the liability is more than ₹ 40,00,000/- and the fact that the fifth respondent is prepared to purchase the property of the first petitioner subject to the charge of the State - The second petitioner shall execute appropriate documents before the third respondent to furnish her property referred to in the writ petition as security for the amounts due from the first petitioner and surrender the original title deed of the property - On compliance the third respondent shall lift the attachment over the property of the first petitioner - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Assessment of escaped turnover under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, challenge of appellate orders, attachment of property for non-payment of dues, request for lifting attachment and providing alternative security, valuation of property, disposal of writ petition.

Assessment of Escaped Turnover:
The first petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, had escaped turnover assessed by the first respondent for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The appellate authority affirmed the orders, which were then challenged before the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal through appeals (Exts.P3 and P3(a)). The petitioners argued that the tax liability was &8377; 15,76,318, while the total liability was &8377; 21,06,117. Due to non-payment, a property owned by the first petitioner was attached for dues realization.

Attachment of Property and Request for Lifting:
The petitioners sought to sell the attached property to settle their liabilities and offered another property owned by the second petitioner as security. However, the request to lift the attachment over the first petitioner's property and accept the alternative security was denied by the third respondent through Ext.P6 order. The petitioners contended that they could clear their dues by selling the property under attachment and providing the second petitioner's property as security.

Valuation and Alternative Security:
A memo filed by the Government Pleader stated that the value of the second petitioner's property was assessed at &8377; 40,05,585. The fifth respondent expressed willingness to purchase the first petitioner's property subject to the State's charge under Section 38 of the Act to help the petitioners settle their liabilities.

Judgment and Disposal of Writ Petition:
Considering the liabilities and the properties involved, the court directed the second petitioner to provide her property as security and surrender the original title deed. The first petitioner was instructed to pay &8377; 5,00,000 towards the liability pending the Tribunal's decision. Upon compliance, the attachment over the first petitioner's property would be lifted. The property transfer to the fifth respondent would be subject to the State's charge. The Tribunal was directed to dispose of the pending appeals within two months if the petitioners fulfilled the payment condition.