TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 637
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1.20 cents respectively in Pethappambatti Village, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District for a total consideration of Rs. 1,65,000/- from the third respondent herein and had taken possession of the property, by way of a registered sale deed dated 25.07.2007 registered as Doc.No.1659/2007 in the office of the SRO, Pochampalli. The petitioner also purchased lands comprised in S.Nos.37/4, 42/1, 45/1A, 45/1B admeasuring 0.72.5 cents, 0.27.5 cents, 0.13.5 cents and 0.40.5 cents respectively in Pethappambatti Village, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District from the third respondent herein, for a total consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- and had taken possession of the property by way of a sale deed registered as Doc.No.441/2008 in the office of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....background, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the impugned notice issued by the second respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned notice seriously affects the petitioner's right to property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India in as much as it also indicates that the second respondent is contemplating action against the petitioner 's property without notice to the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act and to attach and to proceed by way of auction sale of the petitioner's property in respect of a non-existing liability in so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is specifically submitted that even assuming that any amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent) for the year 1995-96 was finalised originally on 09.03.2000 and thereby a tax of Rs. 8,08,094/- had become due, which was not paid by the third respondent. The third respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Salem, who modified the assessment and pursuant to the same, the assessment already made was revised on 05.01.2004 to Rs. 5,80,836/-. The dealer had not paid the dues even as per the revised order. Even after issue of Form I on 12.05.2004 which was duly served on him on 22.05.2004 and Form 4 on 20.08.2004 which was duly served on 26.08.2004 through Registered Post Ack. Due before attaching the properties, the dealer failed to respond to the same. Thereafter, Forms 5, 7 and 7A were also issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which were already attached by the Department for the legitimate Government dues. 5. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, the learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that this writ petition deserves only to be dismissed, since the authorities have followed the correct procedure in attaching the properties in question and that the impugned notice issued by the second respondent is perfectly valid in the eye of law. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the papers. 7. It is seen from the sale deeds enclosed along with the typed set of papers that the lands comprised in S.Nos.42/2, 42/3B, 42/4, 45/2A1 admeasuring 0.17 cents, 0.60 cents,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the properties. 8. In this connection, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Meenakshi J.Ganesh Kumar v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Srivilliputhur and another, reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 6460 : (2011) 41 VST 150. The said judgment has been passed under similar circumstances. In that case, the petitioner therein contended that he was the bona fide purchaser, since he purchased the property only after getting encumbrance certificate from the Sub-Registrar, Srivilliputhur and that when the Department had not attached the property prior to purchase of the same by the petitioner therein, it was not open to the Department to issue the notice impugned therein. But, this Court has observed that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the proper remedy for the petitioner is only to approach the competent Civil Court relying upon the undertakings given by his vendor in the sale deeds. 11. The judgment of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of D.Senthil Kumar and others v. Commercial Tax Officer, Erode and another (cited supra), will not apply to the facts of the present case, since in that case, the charge created on the property was subsequent to purchase of the property, but in the present case, the petitioner herein purchased the properties from the third respondent only subsequent to the attachment effected by the Department. 12. The order passed by this....