KUNHI AYISIA UMMA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ petition is directed against the order of the Tahsildar,Quilandy evidenced by Ext.P -5 dated 9th December 1972 whereby the said officer rejected a petition preferred before him by the writ petitioner herein objecting to the attachment of a property belonging to the petitioner effected under the Revenue Recovery Act for the realisation of certain arrears of salestax due from one late Sri V.G.Mammad Haji.

(2.) THE petitioner is the widow of deceased Mammad Haji referred to above who died on 17th October 1963.During his lifetime he had gifted the property in question to the petitioner by a registered deed of gift dated 10th May 1962.The arrears of salestax which are sought to be recovered by the impugned recovery proceedings related to the year 1962 -63.The assessment for that year was made only after the death of Mammad Haji and the petitioner had not been made a party to those assessment proceedings.The assessment had been made against the son of the deceased Mammad Haji treating him as the legal heir of the deceased who is liable for the tax.The order of assessment was passed only on 9th November 1964.It is clear from the facts set out above that the petitioner not being liable to pay the tax in question cannot be regarded as a defaulter in respect of the tax liability.Notwithstan­ding the above,the petitioner's property covered by the gift deed aforementioned was attached by the Tahsildar,Quilandy(2nd respondent)as per his notice evidenced by Ext.P -2 dated 9th December,1972.Prior to the said attachment the petitioner had been served with a notice in form 10 issued under section 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act and in response thereto the petitioner had submitted a representation Ext.P -3 wherein she had specifically sub­mitted that she had no liability whatever in respect of the arrear of tax due under the assessment order dated 9th November 1964 and that the land proposed to be attached belonged to her exclusively and it was not,therefore,liable to be proceeded against for realisation of the said arrears.Subsequent to the attachment of the property under Ext.P -2 the aforementioned representation(Ext.P -3)filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Tahsildar under the impugned order Ext.P -5 holding that since the deceased Mammad Haji had transferred the property to the petitioner after the liability of the salestax had arisen with full knowledge that he was liable to be assessed it was clear that he had gifted the property with the mere intention to shield them from being proceeded against by the tax recovery authority for the arrears of salestax that may be found due from him and that hence the objection petition was untenable.The petitioner contends that the action of the 2nd respondent in so rejecting her objection petition under Ext.P -5 is mani­festly illegal and prays that Ext.P -5 should be quashed and that the attachment effected against her property under Ext.P -2 should be set aside by this court.

(3.) IN the result,the attachment of the petitioner's property effected under Ext.P -2 will stand set aside and Ext.P -5 is quashed.The original petition is allowed as above.The parties will bear their respective costs.