The court clarified that refusal of mutation based on future tax arrears is illegal if no dues existed at the time of property sale.

J U D G M E N T

The factual aspects projected in the writ petition (civil) are as follows:-

The petitioner was an assessee with respect to various businesses run by him under the KVAT Act on the rolls of the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner had sold two items of properties in Kottarakkar Village and Melila Village as per Exts.P2 & P2(a) sale deeds on 19.10.2010 and 24.09.2010 respectively. That the request of the petitioner and the purchaser of the property for mutation in the Village records were not being favourably considered alleging that the petitioner was in arrears of sales tax. It is admitted by the petitioner that the petitioner was in arrears with respect to the various businesses as seen from Ext.P1 statement. However, the arrears are with respect to the years 2011-12 onwards whereas the properties are sold in September/October 2010 at which point of time there are no arrears. That the 1st respondent assessing authority has also issued a clearance certificate at Ext.P6 clarifying that for the years upto and including 2010-11 there are no arrears from the petitioner. That it is further stated that in such circumstances, the refusal on the part of the 3rd & 4th respondents to carry out the mutation as prayed for by the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary.

It is in the above facts and circumstances that the petitioner has filed the aforecaptioned writ petition (civil) with the following prayers;

“(i) To direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to carry out mutation of properties covered by Exts.P2 & P2 (a) sale deeds executed by the petitioner in favour of the purchaser of the properties, forthwith by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction.

(ii) To grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the costs of these proceedings.”

3. Heard Sri.Harisankar V. Menon learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.M.M.Jasmine learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. It is contented by Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Exts.P2 & P2 (a) sale deeds duly executed and registered in accordance with the provisions contained in the Registration Act on 19.10.2010 and 24.09.2010 respectively, whereby the petitioner has lawfully conveyed the landed property covered by these documents to the purchaser concerned. As the property covered by Ext. P2(a) sale deed is coming within the territorial limits of the 3rd respondent- Village Officer, Kottarakara and that as the immovable property covered by Ext. P2 sale deed comes within the limits of the 4th respondent Village Officer, Melila Village, the applications were moved before respondents 3 and 4 seeking mutation of the subject properties and for acceptance of land tax from the purchaser of the property in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Tax Act and Transfer of Registry Rules. Indeed the purchaser has also made such application as can be seen from Exts.P4 and P4(a) dated 26.11.2019. It could be subsequently learnt that the Revenue officials concerned, more particularly, respondents 2 to 4 are refusing to grant mutation of the subject property and for collection of land tax from the purchaser, merely on the ground that there are alleged sales tax liability owed by the petitioner for the periods, from the assessment year, 2011-12 onwards. Whereas the properties covered by Exts. P2 and P2(a) were lawfully conveyed and transferred as early as 19.10.2010 and 24.09.2010 respectively. The petitioner would contend that respondents 2 to 4 are under the legal obligation to ensure that the mutation of the subject property is granted to the purchaser in accordance with the provisions contained in , 1961 and the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966.

5. Per contra, Smt. M.M. Jasmine, the learned Government Pleader would submit on the basis of instructions that the contention raised by the petitioner that the liabilities alleged against the petitioner are only for the assessment y