Point of Law: It is clear that amount stipulated in Security Bond is having 'nexus' with specified extent of liability and it cannot be 'unconditional' or 'unlimited'.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:-

“a)Call for the records of the case leading to the issuance of Exts.P1,P1(a),P6 and P7 proceedings and quash the same to the extent to which they purport to proceed against the property of the petitioner via., 48.7 ares comprised in Sy.No.269/8-1 of Cheruvally Village, Kanjirappally Taluk with all improvements therein by means of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order;

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order forbearing the respondents 2,4 and 5 from proceeding against the petitioner's property viz., 48.7 ares comprised in Sy.No.269/8-1 of Cheruvally Village, Kanjirappally Taluk and all improvements therein for realization of the alleged disputed tax arrears of 3rd respondent.

(c) Issue an appropriate writ or order declaring that the petitioner's property viz 48.7 ares comprised in Sy.No.269/8-1 of Cheruvally Village, Kanjirappally Taluk is not liable to be proceeded against for realization of the alleged tax dues of the 3rd respondent.”

2. The petitioner is the owner of property having an extent of 48.7 ares comprised in Sy.No.269/8-1 of Cheruvally Village, together with a residential building bearing No.IX/672B, Chirakkadavu Panchayath. The petitioner along with her son, who is working in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh has been residing there since 2002 and she occasionally visits her native place. On 17.5.2010, it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that the second respondent- the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery) affixed notices under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for short 'the R.R.Act') on the doors of the petitioner's house calling upon to pay a total sum of Rs.2,31,41,787/- being the alleged sales tax dues payable by her for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the third respondent, her nephew was doing business in Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The third respondent bid auction of Foreign Liquor Retail Depot No.72, Ponkunnam in the name of the petitioner and took a Power of Attorney from the petitioner to run the Indian Made Foreign Liquor Retail Depot. The third respondent made the petitioner to execute a solvency bond worth Rs.12,00,000/- in the name of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Divisional Office, Kottayam. For the purpose of running the Indian Made Foreign Liquor shop, the third respondent took out registration under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act in his name on the rolls of the fourth respondent. The petitioner was caused to stand as a surety for a limited sum of Rs.50,000/- while taking out KGST registration and a bond was also caused to be given in favour of the fourth respondent. Respondents 2, 4 and 5 have no authority to proceed against the petitioner or her property for realisation of the amount of Rs.2,31,41,787/- as much as the petitioner's liability at the maximum is only Rs.50,000/- in the name of Surety Bond by her. There are no abkari dues payable by the licencee of foreign liquor retail depot during the relevant period to the Excise Department. The revenue recovery notice issued by the second respondent is without authority of law. Aggrieved by the said notices, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. The second respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the fifth respondent-Commercial Tax Officer, Ponkunnam forwarded a requisition to the first respondent, the District Collector, Kottayam under Section 69(2) of the R.R.Act for realisation of a sum of Rs.2,31,41,787/-, being the sales tax arrears from the petitioner. Accordingly, the second respondent issued demand notices to the defaulter under Sections 7 and 34 of the R.R. Act through the Village Officer, Cheruvally. Since the notice could not be served on the petitioner due to her absence in the residential house, the notice was affixed at her last known address on 17.6.2010. The Village Officer reported that the defaulter was having