9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tiruppur District from one Mr.Govindasamy, represented by his Power of Attorney Mr.Karuppusamy under a Sale deed dated 13.07.2006. The petitioner constructed a House and building was assessed to property tax and further, obtained Electricity Service Connection, Water Connection and other amenities. The petitioner states that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said house property till today. The petitioner proposed to sell the property to Mr.S.Senthilkumar and entered into an agreement of sale dated 26.09.2014 through his Power of Attorney Mr.S.Balakrishnan. At that point of time, the respondent issued the impugned notice on 01.12.2014, stating that one Mr.Muthusamy / third respondent, who was a defaulter regarding payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able property by issue of Form-I and Form No.4 notices as early as 22.03.1999 and was duly served to the dealer. The fact about the distraint property was reported to the Sub Registrar, Udumalpet in office ref.1831/98 dated 22.03.1999. Though letter dated 20.08.1999, the fact of property in dispute now distraint towards the arrears were duly informed to the Sub Registrar, Udumalpet and served in person. Subsequently Form No.5 notice was issued on 06.09.1999 and served to the said dealer on 07.09.1999. Then Form No.7 and 7A notice was issued on 18.05.2000 and served to the defaulter on 01.06.2000. The fact of the property distraint for arrears was given vide publicity in Coimbatore District Gazette dated 27.07.2000. The copy of the above Coi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of an opinion that the first respondent cannot pursue the matter after long period. 8. In the present case, the subject property was sold by the defaulter / 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent on 25.08.1999, who in turn, further sold the property to the petitioner on 13.07.2006 and the petitioner has no knowledge about any such charge created by the Department till the impugned orders are issued on 01.12.2004. The long delay in initiating action would defeat the proceedings itself. Even in the impugned notice, it is stated that the arrears of Commercial Tax due was of the year 1992-93. This being the factum, the writ petition is to be considered. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the first respondent in proceedings in Na.K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
