SUJIR SURESH NAYAK Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, legal heirs of one of the partners of a partnership firm, whose liabilities under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 [for brevity "KGST Act"] were liquidated by the sale of two properties under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 [for brevity "RR Act"], challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge confirming the sale made by the Revenue Recovery authorities.

(2.) Two brothers, Sujir Kesav Nayak, whose legal heirs are the petitioners and Sujir Ganesh Nayak, whose legal heir is the 7th respondent, were carrying on a partnership firm in the name and style of "M/s.Sujir Ganesh Nayak and Co., Kollam". The dues that were created under the KGST Act and its quantum are not in dispute and the issue involved in the present proceedings is the sustainability of the sale to liquidate the said dues. The sale carried out by the Revenue Recovery authorities was of two properties; one in Vadakkevila Village [item No.1 in Exhibit P1 having an extent of 35.33 Ares] and the other in Mundakkal Village [Item No.2 in Exhibit P1 having an extent of 21.83 Ares]. The respondents 8 and 9 respectively purchased the said properties in the auction.

(3.) The sale is challenged on the ground of violation of Sections 49, 74 and 75 of the RR Act: (i) the notice having not been published in the manner provided, (ii) there being no attachment of the properties effected prior to the sale, (iii) the notices issued under Form-16 in the name of one of the partners and the firm, being after the death of that partner who was the owner of the said properties' (iv) the legal heir; of Sujir Ganesh Nayak (the deceased partner), the 7th respondent and the surviving partner were not put to notice (v) the valuation being lesser than the actual market value (vi) non-consideration of Section 62. As to the irregularities in publication of notice it is further alleged that Form-16 notice as contemplated under the RR Act; did not contain the valuation of the property and the valuation itself was arrived at just prior to the sale. The attachment was also on 03.03.2007, after the notice at Exhibits P3 and P4 were issued. The publication at Exhibit P1 was not made with a gap of 30 days from the date on which the sale was fixed.