9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, the property was sold in revenue auction on 14.6.1996 and the purchasers had in fact deposited 50% of the bid amount. However, since assessments were set aside and remanded in appeal proceedings on 25.6.1996, sale was revoked. Without noticing sales tax liability due from the defaulter, the civil court in execution proceedings, sold the very same properties on 17.11.1997, 11.12.1997 and 26.12.1998 respectively. In court auction, the properties were purchased by respondents 4 to 6, who in turn sold the same to petitioners vide Exts.P1 to P3 sale deeds. According to the petitioners, the properties are free from charge towards sales tax liability and therefore, sale in court auction and their subsequent purchase confer valid title for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw for the time being in force, any amount of tax, penalty, interest and any other amount, if any, payable by a dealer or any other person under this Act, shall be the first charge on the property of the dealer, or such person." While the case of the petitioner is that Section 26A has no application, Government Pleader submitted that Section 26A applies to all cases where transfers are made during pendency of any proceeding under the KGST Act. He has also relied on Division Bench judgment of this court in HAMSA V. ASST. COMMISSIONER (2008(3) KLT 180) wherein this court held that Section 26A has application even if assessment is not completed and it is enough assessment is pending at the time of transfer. This court has further held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is specific demand already raised. In this case admittedly much before the sale in execution proceeding, the property was attached in recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of sales tax and it was in fact sold. However, sale was withdrawn for the interim period i.e. during the period the assessments stood remanded for re-assessment. In fact the defaulter-judgment debtor should have brought to the notice of the execution court, the pendency of sales tax proceedings and recovery steps taken earlier, which go to show that there is complicity on his side in the execution court selling the property without noticing the sales tax liability. Apparently there is collusion between the parties in the civil court proceedings. In any case I am of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
