TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the municipal corporation could recover property tax dues for the period prior to the purchase of the shops from the petitioners, who had acquired the properties in a bank auction without notice of any such dues.
Analysis: The petitioners purchased the secured assets in auction under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and the auction notice did not mention any outstanding municipal tax dues. The Court applied the principle that a transferee for value without notice is not liable for prior dues merely because a charge is asserted on the property. It relied on the rule that a charge cannot be enforced against a purchaser without notice unless the governing law expressly permits such enforcement, and held that no actual or constructive notice of the municipal dues was shown before the sale certificates were issued. On that basis, the Court held that the corporation could not recover pre-purchase property tax dues from the petitioners, though recovery from the erstwhile owner remained open.
Conclusion: The recovery of property tax from the petitioners for the period prior to 05/03/2014 was unlawful and was set aside; the petitioners succeeded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
