TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Case Dismissed: Property Sale Violates Tax Law, Suit Denied</h1> The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking a permanent injunction against defendant-1 due to non-compliance with sections 79 and 80 of the ... Firm Issues:- Compliance with sections 79 and 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure- Validity of the sale under section 281 of the Income-tax Act- Necessity of notice to the Union Government and the Central Government as a party to the suitCompliance with Sections 79 and 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure:The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against defendant-1 to prevent the sale of the suit property. Defendant-1 argued that the sale was fraudulent under section 281 of the Income-tax Act and contended that notice under section 80 of the CPC was not given, rendering the suit untenable. The trial court addressed various issues, including compliance with sections 79 and 80 of the CPC. It answered some issues in the affirmative and others in the negative, ultimately dismissing the plaintiff's suit.Validity of the Sale under Section 281 of the Income-tax Act:The plaintiff claimed to be the absolute owner of the suit property purchased from defendant-2. Defendant-1 initiated proceedings for recovery of tax arrears from defendant-2, who then sold the property to defendant-1. The plaintiff argued that the property could not be attached by defendant-1 as it belonged to the plaintiff firm. The trial court found the sale to be in violation of section 281 of the Income-tax Act and dismissed the suit. The appellate court upheld this decision, leading to the plaintiff's appeal to the High Court.Necessity of Notice to the Union Government and Central Government as a Party to the Suit:The High Court considered whether notice to the Union Government and the Central Government was necessary in the case. It was argued that the Central Government should have been a party to the suit since the sale was related to tax recovery. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra v. Chander Kant, the High Court held that notice should have been issued to the Central Government and the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO). As no such notice was given, the court found the suit not maintainable. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of complying with procedural requirements when government entities are involved in legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
