Court dismisses challenge to attachment order for sales tax arrears in Cuddalore District

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the validity of the attachment order dated 30.11.2015 due to arrears of sales tax on a property in Cuddalore District. The court found that the original assessment order was properly served by the respondents, allowing for the right of appeal under Section 51 of the Act. As the petitioner did not challenge the original assessment order, objections to the consequential attachment order were precluded. The petitioner was advised to pursue appeal remedies instead of directly challenging the attachment order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the order of attachment dated 30.11.2015.
2. Alleged failure to serve the original assessment order to the writ petitioner.
3. Dispute regarding the attachment of property due to arrears of sales tax.
4. Contention on the legality of the consequential order of attachment.
5. Compliance with statutory procedures for serving assessment orders.
6. Right of appeal against the original assessment order.
7. Challenge to the attachment order consequent to the original assessment order.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought to quash the order of attachment dated 30.11.2015, concerning a property in Cuddalore District due to arrears of sales tax. The petitioner argued that the original assessment order was not served, rendering the attachment invalid.

2. The petitioner contended that the original assessment order dated 15.06.2015 was not received, depriving the right to appeal. However, the respondents claimed that the assessment order was sent via registered post, and when refused, it was affixed on the petitioner's residential door.

3. The petitioner's daughter's house was inspected for alleged business activities, which were not found. The petitioner emphasized that the property was solely residential, not related to any commercial ventures.

4. The legality of the consequential order of attachment was challenged by the petitioner, citing non-service of the original assessment order as a crucial factor in the dispute.

5. The respondents argued that the original assessment order was duly served by following legal procedures, including sending it via registered post and affixing it on the petitioner's door in the presence of witnesses.

6. The court highlighted the petitioner's right of appeal against the original assessment order under Section 51 of the Act. Failure to challenge the original assessment order implied acceptance, precluding objections to the consequential attachment order.

7. The court dismissed the writ petition, noting that the respondents had properly served the original assessment order. The petitioner was advised to pursue available appeal remedies instead of challenging the attachment order directly.

---