9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.112/1 of Choondal Village in the name of the Government under Section 50(2)(i) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act as bought-in-land for Re.1, is illegal and is liable to be set aside. 2. The petitioner states that he was the Proprietor of Classic Rubbers and an assessee of sales tax. The business failed and sales tax for the years 1990-2000, 1993-1994, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 remained unpaid. Respondents 6 and 7-Tax Officers fixed the liability of the petitioner at ₹ 21,62,386/-. At the instance of respondents 6 and 7, respondents 2 to 5 initiated revenue recovery proceedings to realise the sales tax dues. The property standing in the name of the petitioner's father late Sri. Kuju Moidu having an extent of 0.2546 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, the respondents may not re-convey the bought-in-land to the petitioner. 5. When this Writ Petition came up for hearing, this Court passed an interim order on 18.12.2017 to the effect that payment if any made by the petitioner in terms of Ext,P4 order will be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the petitioner remitted the amount demanded as per Ext.P4 before 31.12.2017 as evidenced by Ext.P5 series receipts. The petitioner has also remitted collection charges in respect of the revenue recovery proceedings as per Ext.P6. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) Advocate Mohammed Anzar contended that the writ petition is not to be entertained since the petitioner is g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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. 11. This Court had occasion to consider a similar issue in Savithammal R. v. Tahsildar, Udumbanchola and others [2016 (3) KLT 251] and held that when a defaulter makes paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
