9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Property attachment and sale for tax arrears recovery. 2. Ownership dispute between legal representative and tax authorities. 3. Challenge to the sale proclamation on technical and ownership grounds. Property Attachment and Sale for Tax Arrears Recovery: The case involves a petition by the legal representative of a defaulter, Marimuthu Reddiar, against the Department's proceedings to recover tax arrears by selling attached immovable property. The attachment order was initially against Marimuthu Reddiar alone, specifically a dwelling house at Thalatheru, Karaikal. Subsequently, the Department sent notices for sale settlement, leading to objections from the petitioner, Natarajan, claiming ownership of the attached property since 1974. Despite objections and requests not to proceed against his property, the Tax Recovery Officer proceeded with the sale proclamation, citing lack of proof of absolute ownership by the petitioner and his brother, Arunachalam. Ownership Dispute Between Legal Representative and Tax Authorities: The petitioner raised objections challenging the sale proclamation, primarily on the grounds that the property did not belong to the defaulter and was not the one attached. However, the court highlighted that since the petitioner did not challenge the previous orders under rule 11, he could not assert ownership without establishing it in a civil court as required. The petitioner's claim of ownership based on a registered partition deed was deemed insufficient due to the lack of proper forum for validation. The court emphasized that the defaulter, Marimuthu Reddiar, should challenge the proceedings, not his sons, as they lacked the legal standing to contest the property's identification and ownership. Challenge to the Sale Proclamation on Technical and Ownership Grounds: The petitioner's challenge to the sale proclamation on technical grounds was dismissed as the attachment order and subsequent notices were directed at the defaulter, not the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner had acknowledged the property covered by the attachment in earlier objections, making it untenable to dispute the property's identification at a later stage. Moreover, the petitioner's objections focused on ownership rather than property identification, and raising new issues at a later stage without legal standing was deemed impermissible. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the lack of merit and denying costs. In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of following legal procedures, establishing ownership in the appropriate forum, and maintaining legal standing to challenge proceedings effectively.
|
