RENJITHA Vs. JAYANTHI D.KAMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 WERE PARTNERS OF A FIRM BY NAME V.J. ENTERPRISES '. The firm was a defaulter under the KGST Act for the year 1998-1999 to 2000-2001. After the default was committed, respondents 3 and 4 and two others, transferred a property owned by them to respondents 1 and 2 by Ext.P2 document dated 13.06.2002. From out of the property thus conveyed, 3 cents were purchased by the petitioner on 29.11.2004 as per Ext.P1 sale deed. The sale consideration paid is Rs.2,30,000.00 out of which, according to her, Rs.2,25,000.00 was paid by availing of a loan from the 7th respondent. Petitioner appears to have constructed a house in the property and is residing there with her family.

(2.) WHILE so, Ext.P8 notice under Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act was issued to the petitioner in 2004 proposing to proceed against the property for realizing the sales tax liability of respondents 3 and 4. She filed objections, which were rejected by Ext.P10. Her representation to the District Collector also was rejected by Ext.P13. Thereafter, the Tahsildar issued Ext.P15 and it is at that stage, this writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings against the property. Petitioner also challenges the validity of Section 26A of the KGST Act.

(3.) HOWEVER , the counsel for the petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.320 of 2012 and connected cases where, on equitable considerations, the following directions were issued: