TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent Nos.6, 8 and 9, learned advocate Mr.Tirth Bhatt for learned advocate Mr.Virat Popat for respondent No.7 and learned advocate Mr.Anip Gandhi for respondent No.10. 2. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to set aside order dated 6.3.2021 passed by respondent No.3- the Sub Registrar, Jamnagar. The said order dated 6.3.2021 is in nature of communication addressed to the petitioner whereby respondent No.3 has kept pending document No.1169 dated 16.2.2021, refusing to release the same on the ground that on the subject matter land covered under the said document, there exists an encumbrance in the nature of government dues of unpaid sales tax as communicated by letter dated 14.10.2019 of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax- respondent No.5 herein. It was stated that the properties were under attachment under Section 45 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, for non-payment of the tax by original owner of the properties named Pradipkumar Govindbhai Lakkad. 2.1 The document refused to be returned by the Sub Registrar was the sale deed executed in respect of Plot No.43 admeasuring 140 sq.mtrs. of survey No.1149/2, Jamnagar. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tenant and the rights would be subject to outcome of petition. 3.3 As the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal were pending, respondent Nos.6 to 9 joined petitioner in the proceedings and challenge the auction conducted by the Axis Bank. Aforementioned Special Civil Application filed by the tenant came to be rejected by order dated 26.2.2019 of this court and petitioner- tenant was directed to avail the alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Letters Patent Appeal by the tenant was also dismissed. The said tenant moved Securitization Application No.611 of 2019. In that proceedings delay has not been condoned till date. 3.4 As the stay was vacated pursuant to dismissal of Special Civil Application No.16956 of 2017 as stated above, the Axis Bank executed registered sale certificate in favor of the petitioner on 28.2.2019. The petitioners were also handed over the possession. The petitioner started developing the land. Thirty- two plots came to be divided amongst the petitioners as per the share of each of the petitioners, and partition deed was also executed for the said thirty-two plots. Each of the petitioners became independent owners of four plots. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the action. 4.1 It was submitted that respondent Nos.4 and 5 were also aware about the auction conducted by Axis Bank. It was further submitted that the dues of the bank were secured debts under the SERFAESI Act for recovery of the auction was held and the petitioner purchase the properties. Section 26E of the SERFAESI Act was relied on to further submit that the dues of the sales tax authorities would not take precedence. It was submitted that the sale was confirmed in favor of the petitioner pursuant to the auction. It was submitted by highlighting the conduct of the sales tax authorities that they acted in collusion. It was next submitted that respondent No.7 intentionally gave undertaking for liability of his mother and not himself. It was submitted that respondent Nos.4 and 5 sales tax authorities failed to verify the status of property. 4.2 Respondent No.7- original owner of the property filed affidavit-in-reply to raise various contentions including to submit that sale of the property was effected with all encumbrances and liabilities and that the sale certificate mentioned the said aspect. It was submitted that the even then the Mamlatdar passed order dated 10.1.2020 ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accordance with law was conducted. (ii) The petitioner was successful bidder who purchased the property. (iii) Sale certificate dated 28.2.2019 in favor of the petitioner came to be issued. The sale certificate was registered. (iv) Original owner- respondent No.7 conveyed to the sales tax authorities that he had no objection to register the charge in respect of the sales tax dues. (v) No interest had survived for original owner after auction sale by the Bank and the petitioner becoming owner of the property. (vi) The so called tenant claiming to be in occupation of the property failed in the litigation before this court. No stay was granted to him and the court permitted issuance of sale certificate in favor of the petitioner. (vii) In the proceedings before the Mamlatdar, objecting to the mutation entry in favor of the petitioners, none of the contentions held merit. The Mamlatdar refused the prayer. (viii) On the basis of the sale certificate No.1383, the name of the petitioners- the holder of the sale certificate was mutated in the revenue records subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. (ix) The petitioners sold the property ....