Judgment : The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 notice of sale of the immovable property belonging to him as proceeded against by the respondent, stating that the acquisition of the property by the petitioner is hit by section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and also by Section 26(A) of the KGST Act. 2. The sequence of events is that, the father of the petitioner was an 'assessee' before the Sales Tax authorities. The assessment proceedings in respect of the year 1996-97 and 1997-98 were pending and the accounts of the assessee (father of the petitioner) were called for, by issuing form No.50 notice on 18.05.2000. Subsequently, notices were issued on 06.07.2000, 09.08.2000, 23.08.2000, 02.09.2000 and 19.09.2000 as well. The father of the petitioner sought for time on 10.10.2000. The notice issued on 28.09.2000 was answered by the assessee as per the reply dated 16.12.2000 and the assessment orders as borne by Exts.P2 and P3 were passed on 22.12.2000. 3. The assessment orders were followed by the requisition for revenue Recovery steps sought to be pursued on 30.01.2001. The petitioner contends that he is never an assessee nor a defaulter under the KGST Act/Rules and no proceedings were pending as on 22.03.2000, when the concerned property was transferred to his name, by his father as per settlement deed No.1690/2000 of the SRO, Perumbavoor. 4. The third respondent has denied the contentions raised by the petitioner, stating that the transfer effected by the father of the petitioner, who was the 'assessee' and "defaulter", was very much during the pendency of the proceedings and the transaction is hit by Section 26(A) of KGST and also as per the stipulation under Section 44 of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It is further pointed out that since the transfer is to a near relative, no written demand is even needed to be served on the defaulter, by virtue of the stipulation under Section 44(3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 5. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that, there is a statutory duty cast upon the 'assessee' to have filed 'monthly return' as stipulated under Rule 21(7) of the Rules, besides the stipulation to file the annual return as contemplated under Rule 18. It is further submitted that the actual liability to pay the tax arises immediately on the 'instance of sale' and not after the completion of the assessment. It is further submitted that the actual liability to pay the tax arises immediately on the 'instance of sale' and not after the completion of the assessment. By virtue of the above position, over which there cannot be any dispute in view of the liability cast upon the assessee to have filed the monthly return enabling the departmental authority to have the same finalised at any time within a period of four years as prescribed under Section 17(6) of the Act, it has very much to be held that the proceeding was pending when the conveyance of the property was effected to the hands of the petitioner. That apart, in the instance case, it cannot be said that the assessee and the petitioner were total strangers to the story; particularly when the 'defaulter/assessee' was none other than the father of the petitioner and admittedly since he was pursuing his business for several years even prior to the date of conveyance of the property, it cannot be said that such assessee was unaware of the proceedings being pursued by the departmental authorities in connection with the business. 6. The learned Government Pleader further submits that the assessment was also with respect to the previous assessment year i.e., 1995-96 as well; which however is not conceded by the petitioner. Though no positive evidence is placed for appreciation of the actual fact, since the specific averments made from the part of the respondents in the counter affidavit in this regard have not been denied by the petitioner by filing any reply affidavit, it cant but be held that the proceedings in respect of the assessment year '1995-96' were also pending at the relevant time. 7. The scope and application of Section 26(A) of the Act had come up for consideration before this Court on many an occasion. Section 26(A) says:- Certain Transfer to be void: (1) Where, during the pendency of any proceedings under this Act or after the completion thereof, any assessee creates a charge on, or parts with the possession (by way of sale, mortgage, gift, exchange or any other mode of transfer whatsoever), of any of his assets in favour of any person, such charge or assets in favour of any person, such charge or transfer shall be void as against any claim in respect of any tax or any other sum payable by the assessee under this Act. In paragraph 4 of the verdict passed by the Division Bench of this Court reported in Jaya Vs. State of Kerala [2005 (2) KLT 543], the question considered was not whether the party concerned was a defaulter or not, but whether the defaulter had tried to execute a document, so as to get over the tax liability. In the said case, considering the fact that the conveyance deed was executed on 22.02.1994 and that the assessments were in respect of 1992-93 and 1993-94, it was held that such conveyance was very much during the pendency of the proceeding and accordingly Section 26(A) was held as attracted. That apart, reference was also made to Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, in the very same judgment. Analysing the scope of the above provisions, it was held in paragraph 5 that, even though the transfer of property was effected before serving the demand on the defaulter, still if the transfer was effected to a 'close relative' it would be a transfer that intended to defeat or delay the creditors; unless it was proved to the contrary. In the instance case, the conveyance having been effected by the father to the son, it is hit by the mandate under Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 8. The learned Government Pleader also places reliance on the decision rendered by a Single Bench of this Court reported in M/s. Cochin Candiments Pvt Ltd. Vs. District Collector and Others in [2008 (4) KHC 553] to support the stand taken by the departmental authorities. Referring to the facts and figures and the relevant provisions of law it has been observed therein that the assessment was pending pursuant to the monthly return filed for the period in question, when the conveyance of the property was affected by the defaulter to his wife. Referring to the facts and figures and the relevant provisions of law it has been observed therein that the assessment was pending pursuant to the monthly return filed for the period in question, when the conveyance of the property was affected by the defaulter to his wife. In view of the specific averments raised by the respondents in the instant case, also with reference to the pendency of the proceedings in respect of the previous assessment year 1995-96 (which has not been rebutted by filing any reply affidavit), there is no scope to take a different turn and hence it has to be held that the 'defaulter' who was the father of the petitioner was very much aware of the pendency of the proceedings when he chose to convey the property to his son by executing a Settlement Deed on 22.03.2000. Considering the terminology used and also adopting the law of 'purposive interpretation', it has to be held that the words" during the pendency of any proceedings" as appearing in Section 26(A) of KGST Act have to be read and understood so as to give effect to the statute. Learned Government Pleader also submits that a learned Judge of this Court, as per the verdict dated 21.05.2009 in WP (C) 2274/2008 held that filing of the return by itself can be deemed as part of assessment and as such, the proceedings will be pending, immediately on filing the return, so as to attract Section 26(A). When there is a liability on the part of the assessee to file monthly return and since the liability to pay tax arises at the very instances of sale and not on the final assessment, it can be safely said that the matter was pending assessment as on the date of conveyance of the property to the name of the petitioner and it is clearly hit by Section 26(A) of the Act. In the above facts and circumstances, the challenge against Ext.P1 fails. No interference is called for. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.