ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER's father was a dealer under the KGST Act. Exts.P1 and P2 are the assessment orders pertaining to the years 1993-94 and 1994-95. Similarly, assessments were also completed in respect of the years 1992-93,1995-96 and 1996-97. It appears that for recovery of the tax due, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and according to the Government, property having an extent of 6.2 Ares situated in R.S.No.286/14inBlockNo.23 of Kottarakkara Village was attached by the respondents in 2000 and the property was brought to sale on 14.3.2005. There were no bidders and the property was treated as bought in land. The sale was also confirmed by Ext.P5 order dated 2.2.2006.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, on 11.3.2005, the petitioner filed appeals against the assessment orders pertaining to the years 1992-93,1995-96 and 1996-97. Although it is contended that the, appellate authority had granted stay of recovery, there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. Be that as it may, by Ext.P3 order dated 21.3.2006, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and annulled the assessment orders.

(3.) HOWEVER, the learned Government Pleader contended that there was no valid application to set aside the sale. He also contends that, an application for return of the bought in land could have been entertained only if it was made within two years from the date of confirmation of sale. It is stated that such an application was not made by the petitioner. He also contended that the fact that liability has been settled under the Amnesty Scheme does not mean that a bought in land should be returned to the defaulter. In support of this contention, learned Government Pleader relied on the judgment of this court in State of Kerala and Ors. v. George Jacob (2010 (3) KLT 483 = 2010 (3) KHC 381).