The petitioners in the writ petition, who are husband and wife, were managing various establishments that were doing business in food grains. It is stated that the said business establishments have since become defunct. In the writ petition, the challenge is against Ext.P5 notice issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the 'RR Act', whereby an amount of Rs.2,26,81,777/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioners towards alleged sales tax dues for the period from 1998-99 to 2000- 01. Ext.P5 notice also indicates the properties against which proceedings are directed under the RR Act. It is the contention of the petitioners that one item of property belongs to the husband and the other belongs to the wife. In the writ petition, the prayer of the petitioners, apart from seeking a quashing of the notice itself as illegal and violative of the provisions contained in Section 34 of the RR Act, is for a declaration that the property of the 2nd petitioner is not liable to be attached and sold as part of revenue recovery proceedings initiated to recover the sales tax dues of the 1st petitioner. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would now limit his prayer in the writ petition to a declaration that the properties of the petitioners can be proceeded against, separately, only for realisation of the dues pertaining to the individual petitioners.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents traversing the averments in the writ petition and pointing out that, contrary to what is stated in the writ petition, separate notices under the RR Act had been issued to the petitioners. It is pointed out that the proceedings initiated under the RR Act are valid and cannot be interfered with by this Court in a proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I note that the limited prayer of the petitioners at this stage is for a direction to the 1st respondent to ensure that revenue recovery proceedings initiated through Ext.P5 notice is proceeded with in such a manner that the properties belonging to each of the petitioners are proceeded against only for the realisation of the respective dues of each of the petitioners. I do not see how any prejudice can be caused to the respondents on account of such a direction being issued to the 1st respondent District Collector. As a matter of fact, it would be in the general interests of the creditors of the petitioners and their business concerns that the recovery steps, initiated by any particular creditor, is confined to the extent of dues that are payable to the said creditor and to the properties of the person from which it is due. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed with a direction to the 1st respondent District Collector to apportion the liability mentioned in Ext.P5 notice, as modified through subsequent proceedings if any, between the 1st and 2nd petitioners and to proceed against the separate properties of the 1st and 2nd petitioners in respect of the dues that are outstanding against each of them. The 1st respondent shall take steps to revise the notices already issued for recovery of the amounts from the petitioners, expeditiously. I make it clear that nothing in this judgment shall be construed as affecting the proceedings already initiated by the respondents, for recovery of the amounts due from the petitioners, and the directions in this judgment are solely for the purposes of ensuring that the properties of one of the petitioners is not proceeded against for realisation of dues that are due solely from the other.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp