2019 (11) TMI 1352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the order dated 27.02.2015, attaching the properties of the petitioner. W.P.No.30785 of 2019 is filed challenging the orders of attachment dated 12.10.2010 and 27.02.2015, attaching the properties of the petitioner. 2. Both these writ petitions are filed by one and the same petitioner. The impugned orders of attachment were passed for realizing the tax dues recoverable from one R.Ramesh, who was trading in the name of M/s.Sri Balaji Traders. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent in W.P.No.28349 of 2019 and the respondents 1 & 2 in W.P.No.30785 of 2019 and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent in W.P.No.28349 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der similar facts and circumstances has been considered by this Court in W.P.No.1440 of 2019 dated 21.01.2019, wherein this Court after following several decisions of this Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned proceedings therein. Paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 of the said order read as follows: "7. There is no dispute to the fact that the present impugned communication was issued by the first respondent to the second respondent to create encumbrance in respect of the subject matter properties only for the purpose of realising the tax dues from the said dealer viz., M/s.Ashok Spinners, Udumalpet. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is nothing to do with the said dealer and on the other hand, he purchased the subject ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (CDJ 2012 MHC 5515), allowed the similar writ petition filed by the similarly situated purchasers and set aside the impugned proceedings therein. At Paragraph No.3 of the said order, it has been observed 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 ....