9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (9) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (land of an extent of 1.50 acres) to the petitioners. On 5th January, 1982, notice was issued by the first respondent herein (Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kodaikanal) asking the petitioners to pay the arrears of sales tax due from M.A. Jinnah failing which it was stated that the property purchased by them on 23rd July, 1980 from M.A. Jinnah would be brought in public auction. This writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of the said notices issued to the petitioners under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. 2.. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that regarding the sales tax arrears said to be due and payable by M.A. Jinnah for the years 1962-63 to 1976-77, though section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... band in pursuance of orders of assessment passed subsequent to the date of the settlement. On these facts, it was held that there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, which enables the Collector to attach and sell land not registered in the defaulter's name for arrears of revenue due from the defaulter. It was also held that the said property was not the property of the defaulter on the day when action was initiated to attach and sell the same and the statutory authority functioning under the Revenue Recovery Act could neither attach nor sell the same as if the property was that of the defaulter. In this view of the matter, the proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act were quashed. Learned counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pe not only the property of the assessee then owned by him, viz., on the date of the assessment but also the properties which he may come to acquire in the future. If the intention of the legislature was that even in respect of the future acquisitions, the charge is created, nothing prevented the legislature from making a provision to that effect. But as section 24 of the Act stands today, it is capable of only one interpretation, i.e., the charge is created over the property which was owned by the assessee on the date when the assessments were made. Hence, in the instant case, from the above facts, it is seen that M.A. Jinnah was not the owner of the property purchased by the petitioners herein during the period from 1962-63 to 1976-77 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
