<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (11) TMI 546 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158808</link>
    <description>A statutory charge for sales tax arrears under section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act can operate against the defaulter&#039;s property like a simple mortgage, but a transferee for value may claim protection only by pleading and proving absence of notice under section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. The burden of establishing bona fide purchase without notice lies on the purchaser, and material facts must be specifically pleaded under Order 6 Rule 2 CPC and supported by evidence under section 101 of the Evidence Act. Because the petitioners did not establish those foundational facts conclusively, their claim to immunity from recovery proceedings was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2014 17:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 546 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158808</link>
      <description>A statutory charge for sales tax arrears under section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act can operate against the defaulter&#039;s property like a simple mortgage, but a transferee for value may claim protection only by pleading and proving absence of notice under section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. The burden of establishing bona fide purchase without notice lies on the purchaser, and material facts must be specifically pleaded under Order 6 Rule 2 CPC and supported by evidence under section 101 of the Evidence Act. Because the petitioners did not establish those foundational facts conclusively, their claim to immunity from recovery proceedings was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>