JAYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the wife of defaulter of sales tax dues. She was served with a notice of demand seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 24,01,476/- and also an amount of Rs. 1,86,65,176/-. Properties were brought to sale to recover the amount and the petitioner has obtained stay. Petitioner has also challenged the validity of Section 26A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and the learned Single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench and hence the matter has been placed before us.

(2.) Petitioner's husband was an assessee in the rolls of the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax Office Special Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. Penalty proceedings were initiated against him in respect of assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. Assessing Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 24,01,476/- for the offence committed under Sub-section (1) of Section 45A. Notice to that effect was sent to him under Form No. 24A on 14.9.1994. On the same day another notice was also sent claiming an amount of Rs. 1,86,65,176/-. Since the amounts were not paid proceedings were initiated for sale of the properties. Consequently notice of sale in Form No. 16 dated 29.7.1996 was served on him claiming a total amount of Rs. 5,04,38,708/-. A communication was also sent by the Tahsildar on 13.2.1997 to the husband of the petitioner which reads as follows:

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent on 3.11.1994 stating that the documents referred to as Exts.P1 and P2 are sham documents brought into existence to defeat the interest of the revenue. Further it was also pointed out that those documents were registered at the Sub Registry Office, Ooroottambalam where as the property is situated outside the limits of the said Sub Registry Office. Further it was also pointed out that the properties were transferred in the name of the petitioner so as to escape from the liability. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that petitioner had filed a suit before the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara as O.S. No. 18 of 1996, which was dismissed and that fact was also not disclosed in the Writ Petition. Further it was also pointed out that by virtue of Section 26A there is a statutory charge over the property owned by the petitioner's husband and consequently sale would be void. Yet another counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent stating that the documents executed were sham documents and only to get over from the sales tax liabilities.