2013 (5) TMI 206 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

The bank has sought for attachment of other properties which would come in the way of any private sale intended by the defaulter to discharge his liability to the respondent/Bank and also other creditors - violation of directions issued at Ext.P2 order - Held that - We note that the learned Single Judge who passed the impugned judgment and orders at Exts.P1 and P2 is one and the same - The directions at Exts.P1 and P2 given by the learned Single Judge are altogether different on comparison with present agitation raised by the appellants. Approaching the concerned authority seeking permission to sell one item of the property or other item as well and depending upon the stand of the authority or the creditor, no such right is vested with the appellants to contend that he must be allowed to sell the property by private negotiation. So far as the present attachment by the recovery officer at the instance of the respondent/Bank for realising the dues of the respondent/Bank he proceeded to allow the attachment of other properties which were not secured on account of genuine grounds raised by the respondent/Bank - No good ground is made out by the appellants to interfere - Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellants challenging orders of attachment passed by Recovery Officer.
2. Appellants seeking quashing of orders Exts.P8 and P9 based on violation of directions at Ext.P2 order.
3. Single Judge's opinion on the availability of alternative remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Appellants' contention regarding approaching the Tribunal in light of Ext.P2 judgment.
5. Respondent/Bank's argument on the difference in raised controversy.
6. Examination of directions at Ext.P1 and Ext.P2.
7. Appellants' grievance against the attachment of properties by the Recovery Officer.

Analysis:

The judgment involves a dispute where the appellants challenged the orders of attachment passed by the Recovery Officer, contending a violation of directions at Ext.P2 order. The Single Judge opined that the grievance should be redressed before the Tribunal as an alternative remedy, rather than under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellants argued that approaching the Tribunal would lead to a determination of the same issue as decided by the Single Judge at Ext.P2. On the other hand, the respondent/Bank asserted that the raised controversy differs from the previous dispute. The Court examined the directions at Ext.P1 and Ext.P2, highlighting the background of the case related to the recovery of dues. The appellants raised concerns about the attachment of properties by the Recovery Officer, affecting their ability to discharge liabilities to the respondent/Bank and other creditors. The Court emphasized that the present controversy was distinct from previous orders, and the appellants had no inherent right to sell properties through private negotiation. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial grounds for interference, especially considering the continuity of the Single Judge's involvement in the case.