TMI Blog1972 (7) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther settled a certain property in and by a registered deed of settlement dated 11th July, 1969, registered on 1st August, 1969. The petitioner's husband, one K.R. Krishnappa Chettiar, hereinafter referred to as Mr. Chettiar, was a dealer within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. For the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70, Mr. Chettiar was assessed to tax on his dealings and suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e minor child, found that the above notice was consequent upon the default committed by Mr. Chettiar in the matter of payment of the sales tax for the four years set out already. The petitioner objected that so long as the property was not the property of the defaulter on the dates when action was taken either to attach the property, or to sell the same, the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tc. Though the defaulter is not defined, yet it can normally be understood as the person in default. In the instant case, Mr. Chettiar is the person in default. The property sought to be attached and sold under the impugned notice on the date when the notice was issued was not the property of the defaulter because long prior to that date, to wit, 1st August, 1969, he settled the property in the na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the property of the defaulter on the day when action was initiated to attach and sell the same. If the property, therefore, is not the property of the defaulter, then the statutory authority functioning under the Revenue Recovery Act can neither attach nor sell the same as if the property is that of the defaulter. The petitioner's contention, therefore, has to be accepted and the rule nisi made ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
