9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not justified in refusing to register the sale deed executed by the third respondent in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the document produced by the petitioner dated November 11, 2010, duly executed by the third respondent, requires consideration by the second respondent, disregarding the order of attachment made by the first respondent. W.P. allowed. - W.P. (MD) Nos. 13842, W.P. (MD) Nos. 13843 of 2010, M.P. (MD) Nos. 1, M.P. (MD) Nos. 2 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2011 - SASIDHARAN K.K. J. M. Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy for the petitioner Pala Ramasamy, Special Government Pleader, K. Balasubramanian, Additional Government Pleader, S. Suresh for M/s. Aiyar and Dolia for the respondents ORDER Introductory - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcial Tax Department. The said proceeding is challenged in W. P. (MD) No. 13843 of 2010. The order dated November 18, 2010 was on account of the earlier order of attachment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Dindigul. The said order dated September 28, 2010 is the subject-matter in W. P. (MD) No. 13842 of 2010. The Commercial Tax Officer, Dindigul, in his counter-affidavit, contended that M/s. Rockfort Spinning Mills Private Limited was an assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and they were doing business in manufacture and sales of cotton yarn. The unit was in sales tax arrears to the rune of ₹ 34,21,865 for the assessment years from 1996-97 to 2003-04. Since no action was taken by the industry to pay the arre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have attached the property on July 30, 2004. It was only on the basis of the said attachment, the Sub-Registrar refused to register the property in favour of the petitioner. The property, which was taken possession by the third respondent, was sold in public auction to the petitioner. Since the third respondent-Corporation took possession of the property by invoking section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, as early as on December 17, 2003, the question of attachment of the said property by the Commercial Tax Department does not arise. The core issue to be decided in this writ petition is as to whether the Sales Tax Department can claim priority of debt over others in regard to the arrears of tax due to the Stave. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
