Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2010 (9) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2010 (9) TMI 968 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax


Issues:
Challenge to notice of attachment of immovable property and direction to vacate property.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the notice of attachment of immovable property and the direction to vacate the property. The petitioner had purchased the property and was paying property tax regularly. However, the Commercial Tax Department issued notices regarding tax arrears to the previous owner, leading to the attachment notice on the petitioner's property. The petitioner, a bona fide purchaser, had made all due inquiries and even issued a public notice inviting objections to the property purchase. The petitioner argued that no charge was registered against the property by the tax department. The Government Pleader contended that the petitioner should have checked for any charges with the tax department before purchasing. Respondent No. 2, the previous owner, had closed down the business in 1997. The petitioner pointed out the clear title clause in the sale deed, emphasizing no encumbrances on the property.

The court found the notice of attachment unsustainable for various reasons. The petitioner's reply to the tax arrears notice was not considered by the tax department, rendering the subsequent attachment notice invalid. There was no explanation for the delay of six years in issuing the attachment notice after the tax liability was finalized. The court noted the necessity for tax authorities to officially record charges on properties to protect third-party interests. Consequently, the court quashed the attachment notice and directed the tax department to reconsider the petitioner's reply in accordance with the law. The decision did not impede the tax department from pursuing tax recovery from the previous owner and their properties. The petition was allowed without any costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates