9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lam South Last Street, Srivilliputhur measuring 1935.75 sq.ft. from the second respondent, M/s. Maya Exports, Srivilliputhur. After the said purchase, the same was also registered under the office of the sub-registrar, Srivilliputhur through a sale deed dated October 24, 2005. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that after the purchase of the property from the second respondent by a registered sale deed on October 24, 2005, that too, after getting encumbrance certificate from the sub-registrar, Srivilliputhur, the petitioner becomes a bona fide purchaser. Therefore, he cannot be held liable for any attachment for sales tax arrears payable by the second respondent. In his further submission, it is contended that the impugned notice i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ales tax under the interest-free sales tax loan scheme during the period from 1996-97 to 2001-02. As per the eligibility certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (TIIC) dated December 6, 1996, the total amount of interest-free sales tax loan eligible for deferral was Rs. 57.18 lakhs. The repayment schedule started from December 1, 2005 to November 30, 2014. The second respondent after filing of the IFST loan under the said scheme amounting to Rs. 15.60 lakhs during the period from December 1, 1996 to March 31, 2003, which is payable from December 1, 2005 onwards. The second respondent failed to repay the loan as per the schedule. Though the abovesaid amount was collected by the second respondent from their cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second respondent and more so, the petitioner has not even brought to the notice of the court by denying the allegation of collusion taking place with the petitioner and the second respondent in executing the sale deed dated September 7, 2007. In fact, the property against which the present impugned notice is issued belongs to all the partners of the second respondent-firm and all the partners have jointly executed a sale deed to the petitioner on September 7, 2007. Admittedly, when the partners have executed the sale deed dated September 7, 2007, all the partners of the second respondent-company were well aware of the fact that their repayment schedule of the second respondent-company have already started from December 1, 2005 onwards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent to the first respondent before execution of the sale deed in his favour. In similar circumstances, in R. Balasubramanian v. Additional Deputy Commercial Tax Officer III, Tuticorin, in W.A. (MD) No. 130 of 2005 dated August 22, 2005, a Division Bench of this court has held that the claim of the appellant that he is a bona fide purchaser on which automatic charge is created cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India as the proper remedy for the said person is only to approach the civil court to establish his right. In view of the above judgment of this court, I do not find any merits in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
