G.P. VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext. P32, the proceedings of the District Collector, confirming a sale conducted in terms of the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Petitioner was a dealer in laboratory glassware and was an assessee under the K.G.S.T. Act. He had defaulted the tax due under the Act and finally, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and Exts. P1 and P2 demand notices were issued on 16.10.2008 for recovery of Rs. 4.22 crores. This was based on Exts. P3 and P4 assessment orders for the years 1999- 2000 and 2000-01. Petitioner filed appeals before the statutory appellate authority which were rejected by Ext. P5 order. Although the petitioner had filed further appeals before the Tribunal, there was no stay and as a result, the revenue recovery proceedings continued. Finally, 44 cents of land belonging to the petitioner, comprised in Survey No. 380/1-1 in Avanavancherry Village, Chirayinkil Taluk was attached by the recovery authorities on 1.12.2008. In spite of it, payment was not made and finally, on 6.1.2009, notice under S. 49 of the Revenue Recovery Act was issued fixing sale of the property on 10.2.2009. On that day, for want of sufficient bidders, sale was adjourned and thereafter, fresh notice was issued scheduling the sale on 23.3.2009. On that day, there were 7 bidders and although the upset price fixed was Rs. 8.8 lakhs, the highest bid submitted was for Rs. 11.5 lakhs. That offer made by the 6th respondent, being the highest, was accepted and he deposited 30% of the bid amount.

(2.) Subsequently, the petitioner's power of attorney holder submitted Ext. P7 application dated 22.4.2009 to the 7th respondent seeking to set aside the sale and that application was rejected by Ext. P8 order. Thereafter, wife of the petitioner made Ext. P9 application dated 25.6.2009 to the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking to set aside the sale. The RDO heard his wife but orders were not passed. In the mean while, the Tribunal, before which the appeals filed against Ext. P5, disposed of the appeals by Ext. P15 order dated 18.10.2010. By this order, the appeals were allowed and the Sales Tax Officer was directed to issue revised assessment orders. Petitioner forwarded this order to the second respondent under cover of Ext. P16 representation. In the mean while, in compliance with Ext. P15 order of the Tribunal, the Sales Tax Officer issued Exts. P18 and P19 revised assessment orders, reducing the tax liability considerably. In pursuance of Exts. P18 and P19 revised assessment orders, the 4th respondent issued Ext. P21 communication under S. 69(6) of the Revenue Recovery Act on 30.10.2010 itself seeking recovery of Rs. 4,52,864/-.

(3.) Despite the appellate order and the reduction in the tax liability of the petitioner, rejecting Ext. P9 application submitted by the wife of the petitioner, the second respondent confirmed the sale by Ext. P22 order dated 30.9.2010. On service of the order, on 16.11.2010, the petitioner filed W.P. (C). 34582/10 before this Court and in fact, in spite of Ext. P22, on 15.1.2010, W.P. (C). 34428/10 was filed by the 6th respondent seeking early confirmation of the sale in its favour. In W.P. (C). 34582/10, this Court passed order dated 19.11.2010 staying further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P22, confirming sale in favour of the 6th respondent. Subsequently, both the Writ Petitions came up together for final hearing and were disposed of by Ext. P24 judgment, setting aside Ext. P22 and directing the District Collector to pass fresh orders after hearing the parties.