9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner. Admittedly, the application was submitted only on 12/03/2011. True that Court had granted the petitioner seven days' time to submit an application; but the fact remains that recovery steps were to be kept in abeyance only if an application was submitted within the stipulated time and thereafter recovery steps were to be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken on such application. Even according to the petitioner, he submitted an application for amnesty on 12/03/2011 which was allowed on 17/03/2011. He was granted time to remit the amount on 31/03/2011 and he did not remit the amount. Therefore the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of amnesty. No steps were taken by the revenue authorities after filing an application dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. Certain other items of property belonging to the petitioner was attached and proclaimed for sale as per Ext.P7 notice dated 26/05/2015 for recovering ₹ 4,33,81,932/- with interest and other charges. At this stage, petitioner had approached this Court and an interim order was passed by this Court directing that sale pursuant to Ext.P7 shall not be confirmed until further orders. 2. It is now stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had preferred Ext.P8 appeal against the order passed for conducting sale pursuant to Ext.P7, which came to be rejected and the petitioner thereafter preferred a revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner which was rejected on the ground that the writ petition is pendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k. It is made clear that if any proper application is received by the first respondent assessing authority, the same shall be considered and disposed of without any further delay, at any rate within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such application. 4. If any application as directed above is submitted, within the time stipulated recovery steps shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken on such application. 4. Even according to the petitioner, the sale was held on 10/03/2011 whereas he had submitted an application for amnesty only on 12/03/2011. That apart, in the counter affidavit filed by the Government, it has been stated that sale was confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as per order dated 29/10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was not proper, no such grounds have been urged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. It is therefore apparent that the present writ petition has been filed only to delay the process of recovery of sales tax dues. An amount of more than ₹ 4 crores is to be paid by the petitioner in addition to tax dues and his attempt is only to delay the process of recovery. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the value of the property which is purchased by the Government is to be adjusted towards the sales tax dues. He also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ramachandran Nair B. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2008(4) KHC 528] . Each case has to be dealt with on its own facts. That was a case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
