MARY A.A. Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following main prayer:-

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The Petitioner is a housewife aged 85 years. Her husband late P.K.Jacob was conducting a small scale industrial unit named M/s.Palm Groove Plastics, at Kattoor in Mukundapuram Taluk. Due to financial crisis, the industry went in loss and the industry was closed down. Late P.K.Jacob was an assessee on the rolls of the second respondent- Commercial Tax Officer, Irinjalakuda. The sales tax liability totalling to an amount of Rs.2,96,303.00 for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 was assessed against late P.K.Jacob. The petitioner herein was never related with the industry or its liability. The petitioner also did not obtain any assets from the husband. The business of M/s.Palm Groove Plastics, Kattoor was a proprietary concern run by late Mr.P.K.Jacob. On receipt of the demand from the second respondent for sales tax due, the petitioner under the Right to Information Act obtained copy of the application of sales tax registration of M/s.Palm Groove Plastics given by late P.K.Jacob. The husband of the petitioner died on 11/9/1997. The petitioner had purchased with her hard-earned money, 2.000 cents(0.81 ares) of property in Sy.No.452/2 of Kattoor Village as per Sale deed No.1261/1989 of SRO, Kattoor. The first respondent had issued Ext.P3 notice under Sec. 49(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act,1968 for sale of petitioner's property for the liability of M/s.Palm Groove Plastics, Kattoor. The first respondent has included the name of the petitioner as the defaulter and included above property in auction. The petitioner is not liable to pay any amount to the respondents for the liability of her husband since she did not inherit any assets of her husband or the industry or she has never participated in any function of the day-to-day affairs of the proprietary concern. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 sale notice, the petitioner has approached this Court with the above writ petition.

(3.) The first respondent has filed counter affidavit contending that late P.K.Jacob was an assessee on the rolls of the second respondent's office bearing KGST No.25162160 and CST No.25167160 dtd. 17/3/1991. He was engaged in purchasing, manufacturing and sale of plastic goods. The assessing authority issued summons to the dealer to produce the books of accounts for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96. In response to the aforesaid summons, the petitioner, who is the wife and legal heir of late P.K.Jacob, filed a reply requesting to grant 20 days time to produce the books of accounts for the said years. She further reported that her husband, proprietor of the firm, died on 11/9/1997. The petitioner, who is the wife and legal heir of late P.K.Jacob neither produced the books of accounts nor appeared before the assessing authority. Hence, the assessing authority issued a pre-assessment notice to the petitioner in respect of the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 and she was also granted enough time to file objection to the proposed assessment and an opportunity of being heard was also granted. But the petitioner did not respond to the pre-assessment notice. Hence the second respondent completed the final assessment for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 on 14/3/2000 amounting to Rs.2,96,303.00. Since the petitioner has not remitted the amount assessed towards tax, the second respondent forwarded the requisition to the first respondent for initiating revenue recovery steps against the petitioner for realisation of the amount due. The property of the petitioner has been attached and proceeded against as per law.