2018 (9) TMI 547

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioner has purchased the property of the 2nd respondent/defaulter on 02.05.2016 but the arrears have been accrued earlier i.e., from 12.11.2015. The property purchased by the petitioner is liable to the proceeded with under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. The notice grants 15 days time to the petitioner to submit their objections. 3. The learned Government Advocate raised preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the impugned proceedings is only a notice. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the above submissions. 5. Though the impugned proceeding is a show cause notice, if it is established that it is in violation of statutory provision or if it suffers ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....31, D.Senthil Kumar and others Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Erode and another reported in [2006] 148 STC 204 (Mad), and Rukmani Vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (CDJ 2012 MHC 5515). The operative portion of the order reads as follows:- "3. In the case of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thudiyalur Assessment Circle, Coimbatore and another Vs.R.K.Streels reported in (1998) 101 STC 161, the Court considered somewhat a similar case and held that the respondent therein is a bona fide purchaser without notice of charge under Section 24(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and therefore, the property cannot be proceeded against for the recovery of sales tax arrears. In the case hand, there is no charge on the property and there i....