9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tial question of law involved in this second appeal. However, it is open to the respondent to proceed further by passing assessment order for the years in question and initiate appropriate action in regard to the recovery of arrears, in accordance with law - appeal disposed off - decided against petitioner. - S.A.(MD)No.321 of 2016 and C.M.P.(MD)No.3780 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 15-4-2016 - MR. R.MAHADEVAN, J. For The Appellants : Ms.J.Maria Roseline JUDGMENT This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2014 made in A.S.No.6 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Aruppukottai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2013 made in O.S.No.106 of 2007, on the file of the District Muns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand notice seeking sales tax arrears, which was styled as notice before attachment, was issued to M.Syed Mohammed and not to V.O.S.Syed Mohammed. Further, the said V.O.S.Syed Mohammed expired 11 years prior to the issuance of notice. Therefore, the plaintiffs challenged the said notice on the ground of its being ab-initio void as the same has been issued to a dead person and also on account of it being issued to a different person. With these contentions, the plaintiffs filed the suit, stated supra. 3.The Trial Court, on appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the legal position, dismissed the suit filed by the appellants. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Subordinat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the share of the sons of late V.O.S.Syed Mohammed namely, Mohammed Sulthan and Mohammed Ibrahim and the second item of the suit property was allotted to the share of the second plaintiff, who is the daughter of the late V.O.S.Syed Mohammed. It is further submitted that the Courts below ought to have seen that the sons of V.O.S.Syed Mohammed had sold the first item of the suit property in favour the first plaintiff, vide registered sale deed dated 19.10.1995. It is further submitted that the Courts below ought to have seen that the demand notice dated 10.03.2007 is ab initio void on the ground that it is issued to a dead person in as much as V.O.S.Syed Mohammed expired 11 years prior to the issuance of the demand notice. It is further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
