TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the demands. Consequently, on 16.10.1985, an item of property measuring 2.05 acres owned by the assessee has been attached in terms of Rule 48 of the Second Schedule. Later, the attached property was brought for sale by the Tax Recovery Officer on 25.2.1987. In the meanwhile, 90 cents, out of the attached property was sold by the defaulter to the father of the petitioner by two separate sale deeds and 60 cents out of the remaining was sold to the petitioner. The said sale deeds were executed on 10.9.1985, 13.9.1985 and 10.10.1985 respectively. On coming to know of the proceedings for sale of the property, the petitioner along with his father preferred a claim petition invoking Rule 11 of the Second Schedule. The said claim petition was rejected by the Tax Recovery Officer as per Ext.P2 order on 24.2.1987, holding among others, that the attachment over the property relates back to the dates on which the notices to pay the arrears have been served on the defaulter and that the petitioner and his father had no right over the property on the dates on which demand notices were served on the defaulter. Consequent on the dismissal of the claim petition, the property was again brought....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deration for the purpose of obtaining conveyance of the property. This Court held that the successors of the auction purchaser are not entitled to obtain conveyance of the property in the light of the provisions contained in Rule 58 of the Second Schedule and consequently disposed of the writ petition in terms of Ext.P5 judgment, permitting the petitioner to liquidate the tax arrears of the defaulter. It was, however, made clear by this Court that if the petitioner fails to liquidate the tax arrears of the defaulter, the Tax Recovery Officer will be at liberty to proceed against the property. Immediately thereupon, the Tax Recovery officer called upon the petitioner to pay the tax arrears of the defaulter. The petitioner then filed R.P.No.886 of 2016 seeking review of Ext.P5 judgment contending that what was agreed to be paid by him was the tax arrears of the defaulter, for the recovery of which the property was attached, and they are now being called upon to pay not only the said arrears, but also the arrears of the defaulter accrued after the attachment of the property. This Court dismissed the said review petition with certain clarifications, as per Ext.P5(a) order. Ext.P5 judgm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel for the petitioner, the said Rule prohibits sale of immovable property under the Second Schedule, after the expiry of three years from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to the demand for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached has become conclusive. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the order giving rise to the demands in the instant case became conclusive, when the appeals preferred by the defaulters against the assessment orders were finally decided on 12/10/1989 and therefore, the period provided for in sub-rule(1) of Rule 68B has to be reckoned from 31.3.1990 and since the sale of the property did not take place within three years from 31.3.1990, the sale cannot now be made in the light of Rule 68B. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue did not dispute the fact that in the normal course of events, the three year period provided for in sub-rule (1) of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule has to be reckoned from 1.4.1990. But, according to the learned Standing Counsel, under clause (iii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 68B, the period commencing from the date of presentation of any appeal against an order of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e re-sold due to the amount of highest bid being less than the reserve price or under the circumstances mentioned in rule 57 or rule 58 or where the sale is set aside under rule 61, the aforesaid period of limitation for the sale of the immovable property shall stand extended by one year. 2. In computing the period of limitation under sub-rule (1), the period i) during which the levy of the aforesaid tax, interest, fine, penalty or any other sum is stayed by an order or injunction of any court; or ii) during which the proceedings of attachment or sale of the immovable property are stayed by an order or injunction of any court; or iii) commencing from the date of the presentation of any appeal against the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer under this Schedule and ending on the day the appeal is decided, shall be excluded. Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation for the sale of the immovable property is less than 180 days, such remaining period shall be extended to 180 days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. 3) Where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om proceeding further in the matter of sale of the property and obtained an interim order on 7/11/2013 to the effect that transactions in respect of the property over which the petitioner claims right will be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The said writ petition was disposed of only on 11/8/2016. It is seen that immediately thereafter, as directed by this Court in terms of the judgment in the writ petition, the Tax Recovery Officer has called upon the petitioner to pay the tax arrears of the defaulter, which the petitioner undertook to pay in the writ petition. Annexure A1 in the review petition is the communication issued by the Tax Recovery Officer in this connection. Immediately on receipt of the said communication, the petitioner filed the petition seeking review of the judgment. It is seen that in the said review petition, the petitioner sought stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 notice and on 19/10/2016, this Court granted the stay sought for by the petitioner. The review petition was dismissed on 9/11/2016. Immediately thereupon, the petitioner challenged the decision in the writ petition as clarified in the review petition in writ appeal an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... solely on that ground. 11. Further, as noted above, the defaulter was called upon to pay the tax arrears by virtue of two separate notices issued to them by the Tax Recovery Officer as early as in the years 1982 and 1983. In the light of the provision contained in Rule 51 of the Second Schedule, the attachment effected over the property relates back to, and takes effect from the date of notice. In other words, the attachment over the property purchased by the petitioner has taken effect from 21.5.1982, the date on which the defaulter was served with the notice of demand by the Tax Recovery Officer for the period 1977-'78. Admittedly, the sale deeds in respect of the property in favour of the petitioner and his father were of the year 1985. The sale deeds relied on by the petitioner and his father are therefore documents executed violating the provisions of sub-rule(1) of Rule 16, which interdicts the defaulter from alienating the properties. In terms of the said rule, the documents, on the basis of which the petitioner traces title of the property are void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. If that be so, the petitioner is not entitled to file a writ pe....