Judgment :- 1. The Original, Petition is filed to quash Ext.P3, P4 and P7. Ext.P3 is a notice dated 29-5-1985 issued by the first respondent to the petitioner stating that an amount of Rs.13299/- will be recovered from her being the agricultural income tax arrears due from one Rajagopal, the 3rd respondent. Ext.P4 is a notice of attachment of immovable property issued to the petitioner and Ext. P7 is the notice issued by the second respondent dated 27-3-1987 proposing to sell 3.40 acres of cardamom land belonging to the petitioner. 2. The 3rd respondent was an assessee on the file of the first respondent. The petitioner purchased from the 3rd respondent 4.05 acres of land by Ext. P1 sale deed dated 33-7-1979. Before purchasing the same the petitioner obtained a certificate, Ext. P2 dated 17-12-1979 certifying that Shri. Rajagopal, S/o. Chokkalinga Servai, Kuchanoor is an assessee on the file of the Agricultural Income tax and Sales tax Office and that there is no tax liability against him by way of agricultural income tax or salestax for the period upto 31-3-1979. It would appear that the assessment for the year 1978-79 had not been completed when the certificate was issued by the first respondent. But long after on 13-2-1984 the first respondent directed the 3rd respondent to file return for the years 1978-79 to 1982-83. On the same day he directed the 3rd respondent to produce the books of accounts to complete the assessment: There was no reply to that. On 12-7-1984 a pre-assessment notice was sent. That was received by the 3rd respondent on 17-7-1984. But there was no reply to the same. Therefore assessment was completed under S.18(4) of the Act on 14-9-1984. The assessment order was sent to the 3rd respondent to his known address. It is seen from the postal endorsement that it was purported to be served on 8-2-1985,11-2-1985 and 12-2-1985. But the assessee was not available. Thereafter copy of the same was sent to the petitioner on 15-2-1985. To that the petitioner sent a reply dated 1-3-1985 received by the assessing authority on 6-5-1985. It is therefore on 29-5-1985 Ext.P3 notice was sent to the petitioner stating that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount under S.23 of the Agricultural Income tax Act and directing her to. make the payment. Ext.P3 is followed by recovery proceedings evidenced by Exts.P4 and P7. 3. It is therefore on 29-5-1985 Ext.P3 notice was sent to the petitioner stating that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount under S.23 of the Agricultural Income tax Act and directing her to. make the payment. Ext.P3 is followed by recovery proceedings evidenced by Exts.P4 and P7. 3. It is the petitioner's contention that S.23 of the Act is not strictly applicable to the case in question. S.23 of the Act reads: "23. Assessment in case of transfer of right in land--Where a person in receipt of agricultural income from any land in the State is found to have transferred his interest in such land to another person, the transferor and the transferee shall each be assessed in respect of his actual share, if any, of such agricultural income: Provided that when the transferor cannot be found the assessment of such agricultural income of the previous year in which the transfer took place up to the date of the transfer and for the years proceeding that year shall be made on the transferee in like manner and to the same amount as it would have been made on the transferor or when the tax in respect of the assessment made for any or all of such years assessed on the transferor cannot be recovered from him, it shall be payable by and recoverable from the transferee, and the transferee shall be entitled to recover from the transferor the amount of any tax so paid." Under the proviso in order to make the transferee liable there should be a situation that the transferor cannot be found. It was laid down in two decisions of this Court. In Elizabeth Joseph v. Tahsildar, Peermade,1972 K.L.T. 270 this court held that a tax assessed on the transferor in respect of the accounting year in which the transfer took place, and also all arrears of tax due from him in respect of previous accounting years can be recovered from the transferee if the same cannot be recovered from the transferor. In Joseph Michael v. State of Kerala, 1988 (2) 270 this Court held that the liability to pay arises only because of the proviso to S.23 and that proviso in terms must be satisfied before recovery can be had from the petitioner. In Joseph Michael v. State of Kerala, 1988 (2) 270 this Court held that the liability to pay arises only because of the proviso to S.23 and that proviso in terms must be satisfied before recovery can be had from the petitioner. That means the department must tell him that the recovery could not be had from the assessee himself and he should have an opportunity to point out to the department that recovery could still be had from the assessee. 4. In this case the 3rd respondent is the transferor and the transferor has fairly admitted that the liability for the year 1978-79 being for the tax before the transfer is on him, that he could not discharge the liability only because the assessment order has not been served on him and that even though the first respondent served the order by affixture and by registered post it has not reached him at all. The present address of the 3rd respondent is given in Ext.P6. The contention of the 3rd respondent before me is that if proper assessment has been made on him there would not be any liability on him for the year. In the circumstances of the case he agrees that if there is any liability it will be discharged by him. But he prays that an opportunity may be given to him to contest the validity of assessment for the year 1978-79. The original of the order for the year 1978-79 was not available on the file with the Government Pleader. 5. I, therefore, direct the first respondent to send by registered post to the 3rd respondent copy of the order for the year 1978-79 immediately. The 3rd respondent if so advised will file a representation before the Deputy Commissioner under S.34 of the Act or other applicable provision of the Act. If the 3rd respondent files a representation within one month of the receipt of a copy of the judgment I am sure the same will be entertained by the Deputy Commissioner and appropriate orders passed on revision after hearing the 3rd respondent. If the 3rd respondent files a representation within one month of the receipt of a copy of the judgment I am sure the same will be entertained by the Deputy Commissioner and appropriate orders passed on revision after hearing the 3rd respondent. In the circumstances of the case I quash Ext.P3, P4 and P7 and as the 3rd respondent has admitted his liability in this case for the year 1978-79 I direct no further steps be taken against the petitioner to recover the agricultural income tax for the year 1978-79 in respect of the property covered by Ext. P1 sale deed in her favour. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. Costs.