N. Satheesh Kumar vs Assistant Commissioner

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.

The 1st appellant is a registered dealer under the KVAT/KGST Act on the rolls of the 1st respondent. He is engaged in processing of imported and local raw cashew nuts and exporting interstate and intra-state sales of cashew kernels and cashew shells. He is also running a bar-attached hotel at Punalur in Kollam District. The 2nd appellant is the wife of the 1st appellant.

The 1st appellant is in arrears of KVAT to the tune of ₹1,38,73,601/- for the period from 2010-2011 to 2016-2017. Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against him to realise the said tax due, and Ext.P2 demand notice was issued. The appeals filed against the assessment order before the statutory appellate authority are pending. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent attached the residential property jointly owned by the appellants situated in Re.Sy.No.379/15K, measuring 14.16 Ares, to recover the tax dues of the 1st appellant. The 1st appellant gave Exts.P1 and P3 requests to the 2nd respondent to shift the attachment of residential property mentioned above co-owned by the 2nd appellant to his own landed properties. Since the 2nd respondent did not consider those requests, the above writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. It is challenging the said judgment; the appellants are before us.

We have heard Smt.Devananda Narasimham, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

The property attached by the 2nd respondent is the residential property owned by the appellants. The total amount due  to  the  revenue  towards  tax  arrears  would  come  to ₹1,38,73,601/-. The 1st appellant offered three properties owned by him to substitute the property under attachment. When the appeal came up for hearing, we directed the counsel for the appellants to produce the valuation certificate of the properties sought to be substituted to ascertain its value. Accordingly, on the last hearing date, counsel for the appellants handed over to us a valuation certificate in respect of the property owned by the 1st appellant situated in Sy.Nos.599/1/287/A, 599/1/58A, 599/1/89 of Valacodu Village having an extent of 0.08.49 hectares and a building thereon in Valacodu Village in Punalur Municipality. The certificates were issued by the Village Officer, Valacodu, and the Assistant Executive Engineer, Local Self Government Department, Kozhikode, respectively. The certificates indicate that the value of the land would come to ₹72,56,403/- and the value of the building would come to ₹1,03,17,323/-. The valuation is much more than the amount allegedly due to revenue. The learned Government Pleader sought time to verify these facts with the Government.

The learned Government Pleader today, on instructions submitted, that the value of the building would come to ₹59,00,000/- and the value of the property would come to ₹65,00,000/-. Taking into account the said submission as well as the valuation certificates furnished by the learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the view that the property now offered as security is sufficient to satisfy the tax amount due from the 1st appellant. Hence, the 2nd respondent is directed to release the attached residential property of the appellants situated in Re.Sy.No.379/15K having an extent of 14.16 Ares by accepting the property owned by the 1st appellant measuring 0.08.49 hectares and a building situated therein comprised in Sy.Nos.599/1/287/A, 599/1/58/A, 599/1/89 of Valacodu Village as security for the amount due from the 1st appellant to the revenue towards tax arrears.

Writ appeal is disposed of as above.