Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the notice of attachment of immovable property and the direction to vacate were liable to be quashed against a subsequent purchaser, having regard to the non-consideration of the purchaser's reply, the absence of prior steps to secure the tax charge, and the purchaser's claim of purchase without notice of arrears.
Analysis: The attachment was issued against the recorded defaulter even though the property had already been sold to the petitioner and the petitioner had promptly replied to the first notice asserting its purchase. That reply was not considered before the impugned attachment and vacate notice were issued. The delay of several years in taking coercive action was also unexplained, and no steps had been taken to protect third parties by entering the charge in the sub-registrar's records, although the department relied on a charge arising by operation of law under the sales tax statute. In these circumstances, the impugned notices could not be sustained against the petitioner.
Conclusion: The attachment notice and the consequential direction to vacate were quashed, and the authority was directed to consider the petitioner's reply and proceed in accordance with law against the defaulting dealer and its properties.