STATE OF KERALA Vs. PADMAVATHY AMMA J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State is the appellant. The respondent is the widow of one Subramanya Bhat. She filed 0. P. No. 2918 of 1980 and attached exhibit P 1 demand and attachment notice, issued to her, dt. 14th May, 1980. Ganapathy Bhat, who was an owner of various items of property, owned 6.68 acres of land in Sy. No. 99/2 in Kuttikole village. Out of that, he had assigned 2.50 acres to one Subramanya Bhat on 21st March, 1972. The petitioner in the original petition is the widow of Subramanya Bhat. Ganapathy Bhat was an assessee under the Kerala Agricultural IT Act, 1950. He was assessed to pay agricultural income tax for the period up to 1972 73. He committed default. It is for the said amounts due that exhibit P 1 notice was sent to the respondent in this writ appeal. The learned single Judge quashed exhibit P 1 in sofar as it related to 2.50 acres of land transferred to the respondent's husband, Subramanya Bhat. Hence, the State has come up in appeal.

(2.) WE heard counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader. Admittedly, Ganapathy Bhat who is an assessee under the Agricultural IT Act is liable to pay arrears of tax. The properties assigned to Subramanya Bhat, the transferee, can be proceeded against only if the conditions necessary therefor are satisfied, as enjoined in the proviso to S. 23 of the Kerala Agrl. IT Act. The learned single Judge found that it was not shown that the transferor (Ganapathy Bhat) cannot be found or that the tax assessed on the transferor cannot be recovered from him. This is a condition precedent to invoke the proviso to S. 23 of the Agrl. IT Act. In the absence of such requisite, recovery proceedings against properties purchased by Subramanya Bhat and still in the hands of his widow, the respondent herein, was held to be incompetent and illegal. The reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge are justified in law.