Wp(C)/15411/2004 Of A.bava v. Agrl.incometax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 15411 of 2004(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A. BAVA, S/O. AHAMMED, KUNNAMANGALAM VAYAL, MEPPADY, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER, VYTHIRI AT KALPETA, WAYANAD. 2. TAHSILDAR, VYTHIRI AT KALPETTA. 3. SALMA SULAIMAN, W/O. P.S. MUHAMMED SULAIMAN, RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PANICHIMOOTTIL, AROOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ FOR R1,2 & 4 SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR FOR R3 SMT.PRIYA. H. FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT INFAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED ;17.7.1992 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA DATED 11.11.92 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO. D1/36/AII/03-04 ISSUED BYTHE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------------W.P.C. NO. 15411 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the purchaser of agricultural land on which there isarrears of agricultural income tax due for the year 1985-86 amountingto Rs. 63,176/-. When the WPC was admitted, this Court passed aninterim order directing recovery from the third respondent, from whompetitioner purchased the property. However, Government Pleadersubmitted that third respondent has no property and therefore recoverycould not be made from his property. It is now revealed in court thatliability is not that of the third respondent, and it is the liability of thestill previous owner, one Rajalakshmi, from whom the third respondentpurchased the property and sold the same to the petitioner. ;Petitioner'sclaim for exemption from payment of tax is not tenable because Section40 of the Old Act and Section 62 of 1991 Act creates charge of tax onthe property. In other words, property was purchased by the petitionerwith tax liability and irrespective of purchase, property could beproceeded against by attachment and sale for recovery of tax. In other words, property purchased and retained by the petitioner is subject totax liability and therefore recovery is permissible. It is upto thepetitioner to proceed against the seller if there is any mis-declaration inthe document about liability on property. Leaving this open to thepetitioner I dismiss the W.P.C. directing respondents 1, 2, and 4 toproceed for recovery. However, since liability is of the year 1985-86, Iwaive interest and grant opportunity to the petitioner to clear thearrears, if arrears are paid before the 2nd respondent without anyinterest or collection charges on or before 30.9.2009. kk (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge