Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1587 - MADRAS HIGH COURTRecovery proceedings - attachment orders - HELD THAT:- In the counter affidavit, the facts that were narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ Petition are not disputed. It is the case of the respondents that the property in question was earlier mortgaged by the petitioner to the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Tuticorin and that the petitioner was prohibited from dealing with the property mortgaged in favour of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited. Hence, the respondent could not proceed with the same. Since, the respondents were prohibited by law from proceeding with the sale, the respondents are entitled to exclude the time during which the respondent could not proceed with the sale of the property. Only on this premise, the respondents wanted this Court to dismiss the writ petition. The perusal of the records discloses that the facts narrated by the petitioner with regard to the dates are admitted. The assessment order though passed on 28.09.1998 and the amount was determined long back, the property was attached in the year 2003. Despite the fact that there was an order of attachment even in the year 2003, there was no attempt to bring the property for sale. The period that can be excluded is also enumerated in Rule 68 (B) (2). The reason for the delay cannot be accepted as the property can also be sold subject to any mortgage. Further, it is not a ground to extend the period of limitation. Rule 68 (B) as extracted above give a clear indication that no sale of immovable property shall be made after the expiry of three years from the end of the financial year, in which the order giving rise to a demand of any tax, interest, fine or penalty. The provision has been clarified by the judgment of this Court in a number of cases. This Court has no hesitation to allow the writ petition with the following direction:- 9(i) The impugned order of attachment passed by the first respondent dated 27.01.2003 and the consequential proceeding of the third respondent dated 31.12.2014 are quashed. Consequently the third respondent is directed to remove the endorsement of encumbrance made in respect of the petitioner's property in Door No.316A, 316B, Vittalapuram Village, Ottapidaram Taluk. Though, the respondents are not permitted to bring the property for sale in view of the limitation standing in the way, it is the duty of the petitioner to pay the tax due to the respondent. The right of the respondents to recover the tax from the petitioner by any other modes cannot be curtailed. The third respondent is directed to remove the endorsement for recording of encumbrance in the relevant books within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
|