Bona fide purchase and tax charge defence require proof in civil suit, not writ jurisdiction, under the TNGST framework.

Section 24 of the TNGST Act, 1959 creates a charge over tax arrears, while the proviso to Section 24-A protects a transferee only if the purchase was for adequate consideration and without notice of the liability. The court noted that the petitioner's claim of bona fide purchase, lack of notice, and payment of consideration raised disputed questions of fact that could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Because the statutory defence required evidence and trial, the matter was held unsuitable for writ adjudication, and the petitioner was directed to pursue a civil suit to establish title and statutory protection.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could establish, in writ jurisdiction, that the purchase of the property was for adequate consideration and without notice of the tax charge so as to defeat revenue recovery under the proviso to Section 24-A of the TNGST Act, 1959.

Analysis: Section 24 of the TNGST Act, 1959 operates to create a charge for arrears of tax, and Section 24-A of the TNGST Act, 1959 carves out a defence where the transfer is for adequate consideration and without notice of the pending liability. The petitioner's claim of bona fide purchase, absence of notice, and payment of consideration raised disputed questions of fact. Determination of whether the statutory proviso was satisfied required evidence and a trial, which could not be undertaken in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appropriate forum for testing title and the statutory defence was a civil court by way of a suit for declaration.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for adjudication of the disputed factual defence, and the petitioner was relegated to a civil suit to establish the protection under the proviso to Section 24-A of the TNGST Act, 1959.

---