TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no steps whatsoever are taken to have the charge on the property created in respect of the property. There is no doubt that the charge is created by the operation of law. But, if the third parties are to be guarded against dealing with such properties, it is certainly desirable for the tax authorities to have the charge entered in the sub-registrar’s records. Thus quash the impugned notice of attachment, dated October 15, 2008 (annexure F) and the notice, dated October 15, 2008 (annexure H). Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the petitioner’s reply, dated June 20, 2008 (annexure E) in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon. The first respondent’s reconsideration has to be meaningful and in the light of the reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the said property. It is also addressed to respondent No. 2 only. Thereafter, the officials of the Commercial Tax Department drew the spot-mahazar and issued the notice to the petitioner to vacate and hand over the possession of the said property to respondent No. 1 within 15 days. Aggrieved by these notices, this petition is instituted. Sri K.P. Kumar, the learned senior counsel for M/s. King and Patridge for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser having paid the lawful sale consideration. The petitioner has made all the due enquiries. It has even issued a public notice in a leading daily, namely, The Times of India issue, dated May 23, 2004 calling upon the public to file their claims/objections, if any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ajit Kalyan, the learned counsel for Sri H.S. Dwarakanath for respondent No. 2 submits that respondent No. 2 has closed down its business way back in 1997 itself. In the course of his rejoinder, Sri K.P. Kumar brings to my notice the recitals contained in (e) of the sale deed, which reads as follows: (e) the vendor-company has a clear and marketable title to the schedule property, free from all encumberance, lien, attachments, charges or claims of any whatsoever and there are no impediments whatsoever, at law or otherwise, to the transfer of the schedule property to the purchaser. This court finds the impugned notice unsupportable and unsustainable for more than one reason. The petitioner has filed its reply, dated June 20, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for the tax authorities to have the charge entered in the sub-registrar s records. For all the aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned notice of attachment, dated October 15, 2008 (annexure F) and the notice, dated October 15, 2008 (annexure H). Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the petitioner s reply, dated June 20, 2008 (annexure E) in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon. The first respondent s reconsideration has to be meaningful and in the light of the reasons given herein for quashing the impugned notice. Needless to observe that the quashing of the impugned notice would not come in the way of respondent No. 1 proceeding against respondent No. 2 and its properties to recover the tax dues, etc. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
