TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent/defendant for the relief of declaration and other consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from bringing the suit property for sale. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the ranking in the suit. 3. The contention of plaintiffs is that the suit property, an extent of 2878.5 sq.ft. along with building situated in Old S.F. No.92/A, New S.F.No.92/2 in Erode Town is originally belonged to one K.Muthusami as his self-acquired property. The said Muthusami has two sons viz., Loganathan and Kumar and two daughters viz., Manjula and Thulasimani. On 30.12.2002 under a registered settlement deed, the said Muthusami settled the suit property measuring 2878.5 sq.ft in favour of his sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sami and his son Loganathan were partners of one Kaveri Agencies and right from 01.12.1993 onwards, there were sales tax due and arrears upto the year of 1997 and the total amount of sales tax arrears comes around Rs.9 crores. The said Kaveri Agencies preferred an appeal before the appellate authority Assistant Commissioner (CT), Erode, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal I and II and also before this Court and all the appeals went against them. In fact, the suit property being an immovable property belong to the said K.Muthusami was attached and brought to sale by public auction as per the order under the Act and notices sent to legal heirs. Accordingly, aggrieved over the attachment of suit property, the plaintiffs filed the said suit. 6. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said K.Muthusami, as a partner of Kaveri Agenices had clear knowledge about the recovery of surcharge proceedings and he executed a gift deed in favour of his 2nd daughter and she also sold the property to 1st plaintiff only to defraud the revenue and also held that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are not bonafide purchasers by confirming the trial court findings and dismissed the appeal. 9. Challenging the concurrent findings, the plaintiffs filed this Second Appeal contending that both the courts below failed to appreciate the fact that the appellants herein are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past several years and a mere perusal of encumbrance certificate would clearly reveals that the property has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and subsequently, she gave a power of attorney in favour of V.Karthik and K.Baskaran and based upon that, she sold the property in favour of 1st plaintiff on 28.11.2003 and subsequently, the 1st plaintiff sold the suit property in favour of 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs and all the three plaintiffs became absolute owners of the suit property. Moreover, their contention is that they came to know about the surcharge proceedings only after due publication made on 17.11.2009 and all the three plaintiffs are holding the property without the knowledge of the proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. So, they prayed that they are entitled to get benefits under Sec. 24-A(i) of the Act. In this regard, Sec.24-A of TNGST Act reads a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said proceedings, he preferred an appeal before the authorities and all the appeals were dismissed by the appellate authority as well as this Court. Having knew all these proceedings, in order to defraud the revenue, the said K.Muthusami executed a gift deed in the year of 2002 in favour of his 2nd daughter and thereafter, she sold the property in favour of 1st plaintiff. Therefore, the beneficiary, the 1st plaintiff is not entitled to claim protection under Sec.24-A (i) of the Act. In support of his contentions, the defendant relied on the notice served in the year of 1997 to the said K.Muthusami, one of the partner of Kaveri Agencies and the same is enclosed in the typed set of papers, which would clearly reveals that in the year of 1997....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the revenue records. Furthermore, before they purchased the property, they ought to have made enquiry about the ownership of the property, but no evidence placed before this court that they have made valid enquiry. Hence, the courts below have rightly appreciated this aspects, which needs no interference. 13. Even though the property is attached in the year of 2009, but against these properties, surcharge proceedings were initiated from the year of 1993 onwards, because the arrears due of Kaveri Agencies starts from the year of 1993 onwards. So, to defraud the claim of defendant, one of the partner of Kaveri Agencies, K.Muthusami executed a gift deed in favour of his second daughter and the subsequent purchase made by the plaintiffs ....