K P JANAKI AMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in all these cases are the same. THE respondents are also the same. THE reliefs prayed for in the three original petitions relate to maintainability of revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the immovable properties of the petitioners having an extent of two acres. In the circumstances, these original petitions are being disposed of through a common judgment. In O. P. No. 21684 of 1997 what is under challenge is the revenue recovery proceedings on the aforesaid property for recovery of arrears of sales tax accrued due in respect of a business by name "plywood House", Aluva, which was being conducted by one Mr. K. G. Chandran, who is no more now. He was son of 1st petitioner and brother of petitioners 2 and 3. THE aforesaid original petition relates to the arrears of sales tax in respect of assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87. O. P. No. 26101 of 1998 relates to the arrears of sales tax in respect of assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. O. P. No. 13426 of 2000 relates to the sales tax due in respect of assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92.

(2.) THERE is one common feature that is relevant in all the three original petitions and that is the contention of the 1st petitioner that she was never a partner of the business in question. But according to the respondents, she has executed all relevant documents, which were produced before the tax authorities by her son, K. G. Chandran, along with the partnership deed concerned and these documents clinchingly show that the 1st petitioner was also a partner of the firm and as such liable for the entire arrears in question.

(3.) EXHIBIT P13 is subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 83 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioners thus have a statutory remedy to challenge exhibit P13 and viewed from that perspective, I do not think it proper for this Court to intervene in the matter. The petitioners have to work out their remedy before the authority under section 83 of the Act. At the same time, it is necessary that the disputed aspects raised in these three original petitions have to be gone into by the proper authority.