9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (7) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... daughter, in whose favour the petitioner's husband and the minor's father settled a certain property in and by a registered deed of settlement dated 11th July, 1969, registered on 1st August, 1969. The petitioner's husband, one K.R. Krishnappa Chettiar, hereinafter referred to as Mr. Chettiar, was a dealer within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. For the assessment years 1966-67 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. On verification, the petitioner, as the guardian of the minor child, found that the above notice was consequent upon the default committed by Mr. Chettiar in the matter of payment of the sales tax for the four years set out already. The petitioner objected that so long as the property was not the property of the defaulter on the dates when action was taken either to attach the proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss by the sale of the defaulter's movable and immovable property, etc. Though the defaulter is not defined, yet it can normally be understood as the person in default. In the instant case, Mr. Chettiar is the person in default. The property sought to be attached and sold under the impugned notice on the date when the notice was issued was not the property of the defaulter because long prior to tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as set out above, in the instant case, the property ceased to be the property of the defaulter on the day when action was initiated to attach and sell the same. If the property, therefore, is not the property of the defaulter, then the statutory authority functioning under the Revenue Recovery Act can neither attach nor sell the same as if the property is that of the defaulter. The petitioner's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
