C KOYAMU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition was preferred by the appellant challenging the constitutional validity of Section 26A of the Kerala General Salestax Act, 1963 and also for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P6 order dated 13.07.2004 informing that the sale effected in favour of the petitioner is hit by Section 26A of the Act.

(2.) Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against one Kuruniyan Kunhalankutty, assessee bearing R.C.No 3211 and 3086 for realisation of sales tax arrears amounting to Rs. 44,46,093.00 pertaining to the years 1990-91. Revenue recovery steps have been initiated against him from the year 1992 onwards and hence his properties are liable to be proceeded with for recovery of sales tax dues. Assessee. in order to defeat the claim under the Kerala General Salestax Act, had sold his property to the writ petitioner on 28.10.1993.

(3.) Assessee was engaged in the manufacture and sale of sandalwood oil, rosewood oil, ginger oil, pepper oil, cardamom oil etc. Assesses was conducting the business in the name of Delta Handicrafts during the year 1987-88 till 1990-91. While so, he was served with demand notice dated 7.11.1992 demanding Rs. 2,27,168/-. Assessee did not pay the amount and hence revenue recovery proceedings were initiated during the year 1992-1993. However, during the year 1992-1993 Intelligence Officer (I.B) Kozhikode had inspected the business place of the dealer at Anakkayam and found huge suppression of the business turnover amounting to Rs. 1,04,28,282.00. Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated to recover the said amount as well. When steps were taken to recover the amount from the assessee and also from his properties it was noticed that the assessee had already transferred the landed properties to the petitioner herein on 28.10.1993. Consequently District Collector, Malappuram directed the Tahsildar, Ernad to proceed with the revenue recovery proceedings treating the transfer void. Notice under Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act was issued to the petitioner as well. Petitioner then approached this Court by filing W.P.C.No 38947 of 2003 challenging the notice. This court disposed of the writ petition on 11.12.2003 directing the petitioner to make representation before the Tahsildar. Tahsildar considered the report and the same was rejected and the petitioner was served with another notice through the Village Officer on 29.11.2003. Petitioner then filed W.P.C. No 4473 of 2004 against the attachment of landed properties. That Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court directing the petitioner to file representation before the Tahsildar, Ernad and directing the Tahsildar to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Petitioner was served with a notice and he was heard and Ext. P6 order was passed. Same has been challenged in these proceedings raising identical grounds.