9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kfort Spinning Mills Private Limited on account of the attachment made on July 30, 2004 to realize the sales tax arrears. The petitioner seeks a further relief in W. P. (MD) No. 13843 of 2010 to set aside the proceedings dated November 18, 2010 on the file of the Sub-registrar, Vadamadurai in the district of Dindigul, whereby and whereunder the document presented by him for registration was refused on the ground of subsisting attachment. The facts:- The property owned by M/s. Rockfort Spinning Mills Private Limited and more particularly, the immovable property bearing Survey Nos. 453/1 to 6 and 454/2A to H, situated at Kulathur Village measuring an extent of 3.20 acres was purchased by the petitioner in a public auction conducted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Investment Corporation took steps to auction the property and as such, intimation was given to the Corporation about the pending attachment. According to the first respondent, the third respondent is well aware of the arrears of sales tax and as such, they are liable to pay the said amount. The third respondent, in his counter-affidavit, contended that by invoking section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, they have taken possession of the mortgaged property on December 17, 2003. The property was subsequently sold in favour of the writ petitioner and as such, the Sub-registrar has to register the document. Discussion:- There is no dispute that the subject property originally belonged to M/s. Rockfort Spinning Mills Privat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st charge/priority of State over the property will not be applicable. The order of attachment made by the Commercial Tax Department invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act does not hold good, insofar as the property which was taken possession by the third respondent invoking section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 is concerned. Since the possession of the property has already been taken by the secured creditor, there is no question of attaching the said property by the Commercial Tax Department. The Sub-registrar was not justified in refusing to register the sale deed executed by the third respondent in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that the document produced by the petitioner dated Nove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
