TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 720
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 05.02.2021 and 01.09.2020 and Na.Ka.No. 952/2021/A6 dated 22.02.2022, to quash the same and to direct the fourth respondent to remove the encumbrance of the attachment in the petitioner's property in S.No.368/7A1 at Koranatu Karupoor Village, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. 2. The petitioner has purchased an immovable property, which was used by the fifth respondent for the commercial business by a sale deed dated 30.03.2017. Both the petitioner and the fifth respondent are in the same business ie., the sale of glazed tiles. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the property from the fifth respondent and is therefore entitled to immunity under proviso to Section 43 of TNVAT Act, 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....015 and 12.06.2015 and the following demands were raised:- Tax Rs. 16 ,65,246/- 27(9)b penalty Rs. 8,88,176/- Total Rs. 25,53,422/- The demand notices were served on the dealer, Thirumathi D.Mythili on 25.11.2019 and the collection was pending. In the meanwhile, the defaulter had stopped the trade and left the business place. 9. I submit that the respondent No.3 had attached the above said immovable property on 17.08.2020 (which was already encumbrance on 24.10.2020 and released on 10.02.2017) against the following orders and informed the fact to this Sub-Register Kumbakonam. 1. 2013-14 and 2014-15 demand raised on passing of fresh assessment order as per the order of the appellate authority to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the sales of the property." 4. Specifically, it is submitted that even for the assessment years, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, the assessment was revised subsequently on 27.09.2019 for the fifth respondent and that the demand notices were served on the fifth respondent on 25.11.2019. It is in this background, the attachment has been made by the third respondent on 17.08.2020, which was already encumbered on 24.10.2010 and released on 10.02.2017. 5. It is further submitted that both the petitioner and the fifth respondent are in the same business and the property that was purchased by the petitioner was a business premises used by the fifth respondent and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been aware of the fact that the fifth responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs under this Act or after the completion thereof, any dealer creates, a charge on, or parts with the possession by way of sale, mortgage, gift, exchange or any other mode of transfer whatsoever of any of his assets in favour of any other person, with the intention to defraud the revenue, such charge or transfer shall be void as against any claim in respect of any tax, or any other sum payable by the dealer as a result of the completion of the said proceeding or otherwise: Provided that, such charge or transfer shall not be void if it is made - (a) for adequate consideration and without notice of the pendency of such proceeding under this Act or, as the case may be, without notice of such tax or other sum payable by the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted to this office and the appeal were pending." 9. The petitioner can rely only on the proviso to Section 43 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, which reads as under:- "43. Transfers to defraud revenue void. Where, during the pendency of any proceedings under this Act or after the completion thereof, any dealer creates, a charge on, or parts with the possession by way of sale, mortgage, gift, exchange or any other mode of transfer whatsoever of any of his assets in favour of any other person, with the intention to defraud the revenue, such charge or transfer shall be void as against any claim in respect of any tax, or any other sum payable by the dealer as a result of the completion of the said proceeding or otherwise: Pr....