Court dismisses challenge to property attachment due to unpaid dues, emphasizes duty to verify before purchase.

The Court dismissed the challenge to the encumbrance certificate and property attachment due to unpaid dues. It emphasized the petitioner's duty to verify dues before property purchase and noted the lack of communication and records on the petitioner's part. The Court found evidence indicating the petitioner's receipt of notices, casting doubt on their claim of non-communication. The first respondent was directed to provide assessment order copies, but the Court declined to set aside the recovery notice or lift the property attachment solely based on the petitioner's assertions. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, advising the petitioner to seek legal remedies upon receiving the documents.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to encumbrance certificate and property attachment for dues payable to respondent Department.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an encumbrance certificate and property attachment by the respondent Department due to dues payable. The petitioner claimed lack of communication regarding assessment orders to their vendor's vendor, leading to difficulties post becoming a 100% shareholder. The Court emphasized the petitioner's responsibility to verify dues before property purchase, not being concerned with past litigations. The petitioner's lack of records and unclear communication regarding assessment proceedings were noted.

The Additional Government Pleader presented evidence showing the petitioner's authorized signatory received notices during relevant times. The Court found it doubtful that assessment orders were not communicated to the petitioner, directing the first respondent to provide copies of assessment orders for relevant years within two weeks. The Court clarified it did not assess the validity of assessments but could not set aside the recovery notice or lift property attachment based on the petitioner's grounds alone.

In conclusion, the writ petitions were disposed of with directions for the first respondent to provide assessment order copies. The Court advised the petitioner to pursue legal remedies after receiving the documents. No costs were imposed, and the related WMPs were closed.

---