TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntiff has no title over the property for the reason that the alleged gift deed stands in the name of 2nd daughter of K.Muthusami itself void under law. Hence, based upon the void document, the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs are not entitled to get any better title. Apart from that, the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs also contended that they are bonafide purchasers and they are entitled to get benefits under Sec.24-A (i) of the Act. Admittedly, they have purchased the property in the year of 2004 and they were not aware of the proceedings initiated by the defendant - the alleged gift deed executed by K.Muthusami in favour of his 2nd daughter is void under law and subsequently, she sold the property in favour of 1st plaintiff and though the plaintiffs 2 and 3 have purchased the property from the 1st plaintiff in the year of 2004, till 2010, they have not taken any steps to transfer the names in the revenue records. Furthermore, before they purchased the property, they ought to have made enquiry about the ownership of the property, but no evidence placed before this court that they have made valid enquiry. Hence, the courts below have rightly appreciated this aspects, which needs no interference. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the same were brought for sale by auction for the alleged sales tax dues payable by late K.Muthusami and his son Loganathan, who were said to be partners of one Kaveri Agencies. The plaintiffs are not aware of any such tax arrears and they are bonafide purchasers purchased the suit property for a valuable consideration. Hence, they are entitled to get protection under Sec.24-A of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The plaintiffs contended that on the date of purchase by 1st plaintiff, no such proceedings were either pending or brought to his notice by anyone and nor the properties were attached. Hence, they have filed a suit. 5. The defendant admits that the suit property belong to one K.Muthusami, but denied the other allegations. The contention of the defendant is that the said K.Muthusami and his son Loganathan were partners of one Kaveri Agencies and right from 01.12.1993 onwards, there were sales tax due and arrears upto the year of 1997 and the total amount of sales tax arrears comes around Rs.9 crores. The said Kaveri Agencies preferred an appeal before the appellate authority Assistant Commissioner (CT), Erode, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal I and II and also before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants herein are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past several years and a mere perusal of encumbrance certificate would clearly reveals that the property has been sold much prior to the auction notice and no notice of attachment of suit property was served on the plaintiffs eversince from the year of 2003. In fact, the alleged attachment was made only in the year of 2009 after the appellants 1 to 3 purchased the property. Hence, they are entitled to get the benefits under Sec.24-A (i) of the TNGST Act, but without appreciating all those facts, the courts below dismissed the claim of plaintiffs, as such, it is unjust, unfair and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is admitted on the following question of law :- 1) Whether the courts below are correct in non-suiting the appellants without considering the fact that the appellants are bonafide purchaser for consideration without notice? 2) Whether the courts below are correct in law in coming to the conclusion that the transfer in favour of the appellants was hit by Sec.24A of the Sales Tax Act? 3) Whether the courts below are correct in law in nonsu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all of them are entitled to get benefits under Sec. 24-A of TNGST Act. To encounter the same, the learned counsel for respondent/defendant would submit that one of the partner of Kaveri Agencies viz., K.Muthusami was aware of the said pending arrears and he was put on notice even in the year of 1997 itself. Challenging the said proceedings, he preferred an appeal before the authorities and all the appeals were dismissed by the appellate authority as well as this Court. Having knew all these proceedings, in order to defraud the revenue, the said K.Muthusami executed a gift deed in the year of 2002 in favour of his 2nd daughter and thereafter, she sold the property in favour of 1st plaintiff. Therefore, the beneficiary, the 1st plaintiff is not entitled to claim protection under Sec.24-A (i) of the Act. In support of his contentions, the defendant relied on the notice served in the year of 1997 to the said K.Muthusami, one of the partner of Kaveri Agencies and the same is enclosed in the typed set of papers, which would clearly reveals that in the year of 1997 itself, the said Muthusami received notice from the defendant claiming arrears of tax and thus, he had knowledge about tax a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
