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. 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 an extent of 48.71 Ares of land in Cheruvally Village in BL 18 in Sy.No.269/8-1. But she had transferred 44.66 ares of land from the said extent in the name of her son Sri.P.N.Anilkumar, as per sale deed No.2125/04 dated 7.5.2004 of SRO, Kanjirappally and mutation was effected in his name. Remaining extent of 04.05 Ares of land was also transferred in the name of Smt.P.N.Ushakumari, who is the daughter of defaulter as per sale deed No.2126/04 dated 7.5.2004 of SRO, Kanjirappally. Remaining extent of 04.05 Ares of land was also transferred in the name of Smt.P.N.Ushakumari, who is the daughter of defaulter as per sale deed No.2126/04 dated 7.5.2004 of SRO, Kanjirappally. The respondents contended that they are authorised to proceed against the property of the defaulter, transferred in the name of close relatives under Sections 44(2) and 44(3) of the R.R.Act since the arrears arose before the transfer of the property. Hence notices under Sections 44(2) and 44(3) of the R.R.Act were also issued against the petitioner. Thereafter, 48.71 ares of land together with a residential building was attached on 23.11.2012 and was posted for auction on 11.3.2013 at 11.30 am after complying with all legal formalities. In the mean while, the defaulter approached the Government for granting stay of revenue recovery proceedings and the Government granted conditional stay and the auction was postponed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the above writ petition before this Court for staying the revenue recovery proceedings and on the basis of the interim order dated 9.4.2013, the revenue recovery steps were stayed. The revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner are absolutely legal and since the petitioner is the only defaulter, the respondents are entitled to take revenue recovery steps against the petitioner. 4. The fifth respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the third respondent- Sri.P.G.Jyothi Kumar, the petitioner's nephew has filed registration application before the Commercial Tax Office on 24.6.1999. He was engaged in the business of IMFL retail shop. The assessment for the financial year 1999-2000 and 2000- 2001 were completed as per the KGST Act on 19.3.2001 and 3.3.2005 respectively. The assessment for the year 1999-2000 was modified on 15.03.2003 as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and a total amount of Rs.2,25,68,745/- is due from the third respondent. Since the third respondent failed to remit the arrears, revenue recovery steps were initiated against him for recovery of the amount due. The Revenue Recovery Certificates were returned by the Tahsildar on 8.12.2006 stating that the dealer has no movable or immovable properties in his name. Thereafter, enquiries were conducted by the Commercial Tax Officer to ascertain the names and address of the solvent sureties of the above named license of FLR-72, Ponkunnam. The Revenue Recovery Certificates were returned by the Tahsildar on 8.12.2006 stating that the dealer has no movable or immovable properties in his name. Thereafter, enquiries were conducted by the Commercial Tax Officer to ascertain the names and address of the solvent sureties of the above named license of FLR-72, Ponkunnam. It was informed that the third respondent-dealer was the Power Attorney Holder of the petitioner, who was the licencee and the solvency holder of the IMFL shop FL72 at K.K.Road, Ponkunnam. It was informed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise that the petitioner had produced Solvency Certificate to the extent of Rs.12,00,000/- for the purchase of FLR-72 of Kanjirappally range for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Notice dated 23.11.2009 was issued to the petitioner demanding to remit the arrears of sales tax for the above years. But the registered letter returned unserved with endorsement 'addressee left the place, present address not known and so returned to the sender'. The petitioner is the licencee and solvency holder of FLR-72, IMFL shop at Ponkunnam which was conducted through the third respondent and hence, she is liable to pay the arrears of tax. The action taken against the petitioner for realisation of the arrears by the second respondent is just, fair and reasonable, according to the fifth respondent. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents. 6. As discerned from the facts of the case, it is admitted that the petitioner is the owner of the property admeasuring 48.7 ares in Sy.No.269/8-1 of Cheruvally Village together with residential building bearing No.IX/672B of the Chirakkadavu Panchayath. The petitioner was the licencee of Foreign Liquor Retail Depot No.72, Ponkunnam and the petitioner had executed a Solvency Bond worth Rs.12,00,000/- in the name of Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Kottayam. The asessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is the third respondent. 7. While taking out the KGST registration, in the name of the third respondent, the petitioner was a surety for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she stood as a surety for the third respondent while he took registration under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and that she is liable only to the limited amount of Rs.50,000/- given by her in favour of the fourth respondent. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she stood as a surety for the third respondent while he took registration under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and that she is liable only to the limited amount of Rs.50,000/- given by her in favour of the fourth respondent. The respondents have not rebutted the contention of the petitioner that the Surety Bond is only for Rs.50,000/-, in the counter affidavit filed by them, instead they have contended that the petitioner has issued Solvency Certificate valued Rs.12,00,000/- to run the IMFL retail depot in the name of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kottayam. Admittedly, there are no abkari dues payable by the licencee of the Foreign Liquor Retail Depot No.72, Ponkunnam during the relevant periods 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 to the Excise Department. The revenue recovery notice issued against the petitioner is in respect of the arrears of the sales tax for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The property was attached and put for sale for the recovery of the amount of Rs.2,31,41,787/-, which being the alleged sales tax dues payable by her with reference to the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The requisition authority in respect of the recovery notices is the Sales Tax Department. Hence the arrears due are that of the Sales Tax Department under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The case of the petitioner is that she stood as a surety for the third respondent at the time of taking registration under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and has executed a bond limiting her liability to Rs.50,000/-. The respondent in the counter affidavit has contended that the petitioner, without satisfying the arrears due to the Kerala General Sales Tax Department, transferred her property in the name of her son and daughter in the year 2004. Definitely, it is settled law that any transfer pursuant to the demand of arrears to the Government, is hit by Sections 44(2) and 44(4) of the R.R. Act. But the question to be considered is whether the property of the petitioner can be proceeded against for the arrears of the third respondent, the petitioner being only a surety who has executed a bond for Rs.50,000/- only. 8. The Rule applicable to the issuance of Security Bond by the surety is Rule 6(2)(e) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 which reads as follows:- “6. 8. The Rule applicable to the issuance of Security Bond by the surety is Rule 6(2)(e) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 which reads as follows:- “6. Security to be furnished by certain dealers. - (1) Where the assessing authority is of the opinion that a dealer who has applied for registration or has been registered or has applied for renewal of registration should furnish security or additional security for the proper payment of the tax payable by him, the said authority, may direct him in writing to furnish, within such time as may be fixed by the said authority security for an amount, not exceeding one half of the tax payable on the turnover of the dealer for the years as estimated by it or three months, compounded amount in the case of dealers who have opted to pay tax under Section 7. In making such estimate the said authority shall take into account the taxable turnover of the dealer, if any, during the preceding years, the trend of business at the time the estimate is made, the nature of the goods dealt in by him and such other factors as may, in the opinion of the said authority, assist it in making a proper estimate. (2) Such security may be furnished by the dealer in any of the following ways namely:- xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (e) by furnishing two sureties acceptable to the said authority by executing a security bond for such amount in Form 6.” The Rule clearly stipulates that Security Bond to be executed in respect of such amount is not to exceed ½ of the tax payable on the turnover of the dealer for the years as estimated by it or three months, compounded amount in the case of dealers, who have opted to pay tax under Section 7. Thus, it is clear that the amount stipulated in the Security Bond is having 'nexus' with the specified extent of the liability and it cannot be 'unconditional' or 'unlimited'. The respondents can proceed with recovery of the amount only to the extent of the security to be provided and it should be shown in the Security Bond executed in conformity with the rules. 9. In this context, it is important to refer to the judgment of this Court in Shajahan.T.K. and another v. District Collector, Kottayam and others [2009 KHC 1032]. 9. In this context, it is important to refer to the judgment of this Court in Shajahan.T.K. and another v. District Collector, Kottayam and others [2009 KHC 1032]. It was held by this Court as follows:- “ …......since the Departmental Authorities have fixed the extent of liability showing the same as Rs.2 lakhs in the Security Bond, which extent alone was admitted and acknowledged by the petitioner, there is absolutely no merit in contending that the department is entitled to proceed against the property for realisation of the entire arrears, notwithstanding the extent of the liability specified and limited in Ext.R4(a) Security Bond." 10. In the present case, the extent of liability for which the petitioner has executed Surety Bond is only Rs.50,000/- and the revenue recovery notice was issued against the petitioner for the entire outstanding liability of Rs.2,31,41,787/-. The respondents can proceed against the petitioner only to a maximum amount of Rs.50,000/-, which is the liability admitted by the petitioner by executing a Surety Bond. In Anil Kumar.T.R. v. the Sales Tax Officer (judgment dated 15/12/2010 in W.P(C) NO.36830 OF 2008), this Court held that the sureties are liable for payment only to extent of value of the Security Bond. Hence, following the judgments in Shajahan.T.K. (supra) and Anil Kumar.T.R.(supra), it is declared that the departmental authorities will be entitled to proceed against the properties of the petitioner only to an extent of Rs.50,000/- as stipulated in the Surety Bond. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.