TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st respondent. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned p\notice is quashed as being without jurisdiction with a direction to the 1st respondent to lift the attachment and accordingly intimate the Sub Registrar, Hosur, to remove the encumbrance - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.No.19473 of 2018 & W.M.P.No.22904 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 1-8-2018 - Mr. T. S. Sivagnanam J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Joseph Prabakar For the Respondent : Mrs.G.Dhanamadhri, Government Advocate - for R1 ORDER Heard Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate for the 1st Respondent. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued by the 1st respondent stating that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner. More or less, identical facts were considered by this Court in the case Noor M.Saied v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruvanmiyur Assessment Circle, Chennai made in W.P.No.30793 of 2007, [2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 63 (Mad.)] and after taking note of the decision in the case of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thudiyalur Assessment Circle, Coimbatore and another v. R.K. Streets reported in (1998) 101 STC 161, wherein it was held that the respondent therein being a bona fide purchaser, without notice of the charge under Section 24 (2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and therefore, the property cannot be proceeded for recovery of arrears of tax. The Court also referred to the decision in the cases of Raghuvar (India) L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nother reported in [2006] 148 STC 204 (Mad) , the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that the appellants therein, as transferee for the properties for valuable consideration without the notice of the charge are entitled for direction as mentioned above. The petitioner's case is on a better footing as there was no charge on the property. In Rukmani Vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (CDJ 2012 MHC 5515) , a similar view was taken and it was held that there is no material placed before them to prove that steps have been taken under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act against the delinquent or the subsequent first purchaser, and therefore the petitioner therein cannot be penalized. The above decisions are fully in support of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
