Court rules inherited property not subject to tax charge, favoring petitioner. Lack of evidence of liabilities.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a 70-year-old individual seeking a declaration that his inherited property was not subject to any charge by the Central tax authorities. The court found that the respondents failed to provide evidence of outstanding dues or any order establishing liabilities against the petitioner's father. The property's acquisition history and the nature of communications from the tax authorities were insufficient to establish a charge on the property. Consequently, the court declared that there was no attachment by the tax authorities on the petitioner's property, allowing for the property's transfer without hindrance.

---

---

Issues:
1. Declaration of charge by Central tax authorities on petitioner's immovable property.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a 70-year-old individual, inherited a property from his mother, who acquired it in 1973. The petitioner's father had a business, but the petitioner claims no knowledge of any dues towards tax authorities. The petitioner sought a declaration that the property, a flat in a cooperative housing society, is not subject to any charge by the Central tax authorities. The petitioner faced obstacles in selling the property due to a communication from the Central Excise Department to the housing society, inquiring about payments made by the mother for the property. The petitioner needed to sell the property for medical bills and sustenance in old age.

The respondents failed to provide evidence of outstanding dues of the petitioner's father or any order establishing liabilities. The property's acquisition history from the mother, without evidence of being a benami purchase, further weakened the Department's claim. The communications from the tax authorities were deemed general inquiries and did not constitute a prohibitory order on the property. As a result, the court declared that there was no attachment by the tax authorities on the petitioner's property. The cooperative society was directed not to prevent the property's transfer if the petitioner followed the society's rules and regulations.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition in favor of the petitioner, ruling that the property was not subject to any charge by the Central tax authorities.

---