Post-attachment property purchase cannot defeat tax recovery; disputes over no-encumbrance promises belong in civil court.

A transferee who purchases property after departmental recovery proceedings and attachment for the vendor's sales tax arrears cannot use writ jurisdiction to displace the charge or recovery notice merely by asserting bona fide purchase. Because the purchaser produced no material showing prior verification of arrears or encumbrance, the court treated the departmental action as having preceded the sale and upheld the notice. Any claim based on the vendor's undertaking of no encumbrance, including protection or damages, must be pursued before the competent Civil Court, not in writ proceedings. The earlier decision cited by the purchaser was held inapplicable on these facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned notice for recovery of sales tax arrears from properties purchased by the petitioner from the defaulter was liable to be set aside, and whether the petitioner could invoke writ jurisdiction to dispute the charge and attachment when the purchase was made after departmental proceedings had already been initiated.

Analysis: The properties were purchased after the Department had already initiated recovery proceedings and effected attachment for the vendor's sales tax arrears. The petitioner did not produce any material to show that he had verified the existence of arrears or charge with the Department before purchase. A purchaser who buys property after attachment cannot, in writ proceedings, displace the departmental recovery action merely on the basis of an asserted bona fide purchase. The proper course, if the petitioner claims protection or damages on the strength of the vendor's undertaking of no encumbrance, is to approach the competent Civil Court. The earlier decision relied on by the petitioner was held inapplicable because, on the facts here, the charge and attachment preceded the purchase.

Conclusion: The impugned notice was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner's remedy, if any, lies against the vendor before the competent Civil Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A transferee who purchases property after departmental attachment for tax arrears cannot successfully challenge the recovery action in writ jurisdiction, and disputes regarding bona fide purchase or indemnity against encumbrance must be pursued in a civil forum.

---