A PAREED PILLAY Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER ALUVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a typical case of circumventing the tax liability by resorting to judicial device to divert the enforcement machinery successfully for 35 year. In the earlier round Sukumaran, J. ([1991] 83 STC 377 [state of Kerala v. Pareed Pillai]) justifiably characterised the case as a standing monument of bureaucratic indifference with added complications due to the criminal neglect of officers. Petitioners in the original petitions are the appellants. The appellants are partners of a firm, M/s. A. Pareed Pillay and Brothers. It has three brothers a partners, namely, A. Pareed Pillay, A. Mohammed Pillay and A. Khader Pillay. The firm was doing business in coconut oil and was assessed to tax both under the State Act which was then the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act (11 of 1125 ME) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. There is no dispute that the partnership firm was a registered dealer and that for the assessment years 1958-59 to 1962-63 the firm was assessed and the liabilities accrued under the State Act at Rs. 1,124. 29 and under the Central Act at Rs. 12,71,591. 21. There is also no dispute that these amounts were in arrears as due from the partnership firm from the year 1963. Only after 15 years thereafter the authorities could initiate proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act and issue necessary certificate for attachment of 21/40 shares of the three partners in the properties left by their father. At that stage one of the appellants, A. Pareed Pillai filed a suit O. S. No. 307 of 1979 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor, against the authorities for an injunction to restrain them from proceeding with the recovery steps. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision and decreed the suit. On appeal in S. A. No. 756 of 1984 THIS Court justified the recovery proceedings ([1991] 83 STC 377 [state of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai]) and also held that the suit filed without complying with the mandatory requirement of section 80 (1) of C. P. C. was not maintainable. Special leave petition, S. L. P. (Civil) No. 1014 of 1991 filed against the second appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on January 29, 1991.

(2.) ANOTHER brother A. Mohammed Pillay thereafter filed a suit O. S. No. 485 of 1984 after issuing section 80 (1), C. P. C. notice, on the file of the Munsiff Court, Parur, claiming similar reliefs as his brother. The trial court decreed the suit and the appeal filed against the said judgment is still pending.

(3.) THE O. P. filed by A. Khader Pillay, viz. , O. P. No. 9519 of 1991 [reported as Khader Pillai v. Sales Tax and Agricultural Income-tax Officer [1996] 101 STC 152 (Ker)] is now under appeal in W. A. No. 1604 of 1995.