TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed the defaulter to sell the property in the year 1999 in favour of the second respondent. The petitioner is the subsequent purchaser, purchased the property on 13.07.2006. Till such time, no action was taken by the authorities nor further notice was issued to the petitioner, informing about the charge created. In the absence of any such action during the relevant point of time, the impugned notice issued after a lapse of 8 years from the date of purchase by the petitioner, cannot be sustained. 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 ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned notice on 01.12.2014, stating that one Mr.Muthusamy / third respondent, who was a defaulter regarding payment of Commercial tax and therefore, the property cannot be sold without No Objection from the Department. It is contended that the Commercial Department is having charge over the property. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the third respondent / defaulter namely Mr.V.Muthusamy longback sold the subject property in favour of the second respondent Mr.K.Govindasamy on 25.08.1999 itself. The second respondent, who is the vendor of the petitioner, executed the sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner on 13.07.2006. The impugned notice was issued on 01.12.2014, after a lapse of 8 years from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property distraint for arrears was given vide publicity in Coimbatore District Gazette dated 27.07.2000. The copy of the above Coimbatore District Gazette No.7 dated 27.07.2000 was submitted to the Sub Registrar, Udumalpet and also to the defaulter on 09.03.2001. Thus, the Department has taken all actions to recover the attached property for the arrears of tax to be collected. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the contentions of the first respondent that the action was initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, attaching the immovable property in the year 1999, they have failed to continue all further actions in order to auction the property attached and recover the arrears of tax to be collected. Contrarily, the authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
