GEORGE ISSAC, KUNNUMMEEL HOUSE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE P.A.Mathai, Parappalil, Onakkoor Village was the defaulter of sales tax arrears. Accordingly, revenue recovery requisition was issued for revering Rs.17,42,204/-. Subsequently that requisition was modified to Rs.33,09,433/-. Despite notice, defaulter did not pay the arrears. Therefore, his movable and immovable properties were attached. Among the various items of immovable properties, 27.5 cents comprised in Sy.1060/5-3, 31.5 cents comprised in Sy.1061/5-4, 29.5 cents comprised in Sy.1061/5-3 and 14 cents comprised in Sy.1061/5-5, which were sold in public auction on 30.3.2006 for Rs.4,46,500/-, were purchased by the petitioner. There upon, he remitted Rs.66,975/- by receipt No.T.R.5 No.414/81 dated 30.6.2006 at the Taluk Office, Muvattupuzha.

(2.) STATEMENT filed by the respondents also show that by chalan No.265 dated 31.3.2006, the amount remitted by the petitioner was deposited in revenue deposit.

(3.) THE aforesaid facts are discernible from the statement filed by the learned Government Pleader. These facts show that the petitioner has not committed any default in complying with the obligations. On the other hand, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the defaulter, confirmation of the sale was stayed and it was on account of the above, that he did not remit the balance 85%. That apart, defaulter himself has settled the liability in the Amnesty and he has got his properties released from the revenue recovery action. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no reason not to refund the amount of Rs.66,975/- remitted by the petitioner.