9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. The petitioner had purchased a property for a sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- by way of sale deed dated 06.01.2014 from Mr.K.P.Kesavan, the father of the second respondent. The said M/s.Kairali Steels Traders defaulted in paying tax to the Commercial Tax Department. 3. It is submitted that prior to purchase of the aforesaid property from Mr.K.P.Kesavan, the petitioner had also applied for an Encumbrance Certificate from the jurisdictional Sub - Registrar's Office and found that there was no charge registered against the property in the Encumbrance Certificate dated 28.10.2013. 4. It is submitted that only after the Encumbrance Certificate dated 28.10.2013 was received and after satisfying that there are no other encumbrance against the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ennai and another, (2009) 19 VST 393 (Mad). iii. Senthil Kumar and Another Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) and Others, 2011 (1) CTC 828. iv. Tvl. K. Senthamil Selvan Vs. The deputy Commercial Tax Officer, vide order dated 20.2.2020 in W.P.No.399390 2005 and 25145 2007, 25830, 30117 & 30118 of 2008 et cetera. 7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent Commercial Tax Department submits that the vendor of the property had offered the property as a security to the Commercial Tax Department when the second respondent, the proprietor of M/s.Kairali Steels Traders had obtained registration and had executed Form XIX-B before the first respondent on 23.02.2002. The vendor had furnished a security for a sum of Rs. 50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under the provisions of the Commercial Tax Department, the father of the second respondent Mr.K.P. Kesavan, the vendor who sold the property to the petitioner had offered the said property as a security for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as is evident from a reading of Form XIX-B. 13. Copy of Form XIX-B executed by the second respondent's father along with the second respondent on 23.02.2000 clearly states that the mortgage/charge for the specified schedule property was to secure the interest of the Commercial Tax Department for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- only under Section 21 of the aforesaid Act. 14. The petitioner has not bought a property of the second respondent. Therefore, defence under Section 24-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Sales Tax Act, 1959. There also liberty was given to the petitioner therein to work out the remedy before a Civil Court to establish that the purchase was bona fide. There, copy of Form XIX-B was not filed. 18. In this case, copy of Form XIX-B is available. The petitioner has purchased the property from the second respondent's father K.P.Kesavan. The property was not purchased from the second respondent. The property was mortgaged to the Commercial Tax Department for a maximum sum of Rs. 50,000/- only. Therefore, the facts are different. 19. I therefore find no reasons to sustain the impugned order asking the petitioner to pay the arrears of tax of M/s.Kairali Steels Traders. The petitioner cannot be saddled with liability of the arre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
