BRD FINANCE LIMITED Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a public limited company. They purchased an item of property owned by M/s. Oriental Plastic and Lamination Ltd., a company in liquidation, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The sale of the property was pursuant Ext. P1 tender notice issued by the Official Liquidator and the sale was confirmed by this Court as per Ext. P2 order. As per Ext. P2 order, this Court directed the Official Liquidator to execute the sale deed in respect of the property in favour of the petitioner and Ext. P3 sale deed was accordingly executed in their favour by the Official Liquidator on 16.08.2004.

(2.) According to the petitioner, they propose to establish an industrial unit in the property, for which clearances are required to be obtained from various authorities. It is stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that for the purpose of getting the clearances, they were asked to produce the possession certificate, location certificate and location sketch of the property and the third respondent is not issuing the said certificates. Instead, the third respondent has issued Ext. P10 communication, stating that revenue recovery proceedings were pending against the company in liquidation for recovery of its sales tax dues when the property was purchased by the petitioner and therefore, the validity of the transaction in favour of the petitioner need to be examined before the certificates sought for by the petitioner are issued. Petitioner is challenging Ext. P10 communication in this writ petition. They are also seeking a direction to the respondents to issue the certificates sought for by them.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 2 and 3. It is stated in the counter affidavit that certificates for recovery of the sales tax dues of the company in liquidation were issued as early as on 20.02.1992, 21.10.1992 and 10.09.1997 and a sum of Rs. 62,49,813/- with interest is due in terms of the said certificates from them. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the property purchased by the petitioner was a property attached for the recovery of the said amount in accordance with the provisions contained in the Revenue Recovery Act. Section 26A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is also referred to in the counter affidavit. The averments in the counter affidavit indicate that the contention of respondents 2 and 3 is that the sale deed obtained by the petitioner is hit by Section 26A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and therefore, not binding on the State.