9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1090X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is TIIC who brought the property for sale - reliance placed in the case of Rukmani Versus The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer I [2013 (3) TMI 205 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that there is no material placed before them to prove that steps have been taken under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act against the delinquent or the subsequent first purchaser, and therefore the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner had purchased the property in Plot No.167, D.P.Estate, Perungudi, Chennai- 600 096 from the Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., (TIIC), who brought the property for sale, which property was initially allotted to M/s.Karpaga Electronics (P) Ltd., and who had defaulted in repayment to TIIC. Thus, the question would be whether the petitioner can be proceeded against for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possession has also been handed over to the auction purchaser/petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has purchased the property for valuable consideration and in the absence of charge over the property by the Sales Tax Department, the petitioner cannot be made liable to pay alleged arrears of Sales Tax for the defaulting dealer and for such reason, the petitioner cannot be denied registration under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pur reported in (2006) 144 STC 331, the Court considered the case of similar purchaser who had purchased the property without notice of Sales Tax arrears and it was held that the property, at the hands of the purchaser, was free of charge and it was not open to the Sales Tax Department to enforce the liability of the defaulter against the purchaser. In D.Senthil Kumar and others Vs. Commercial Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove reasons, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned notice is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and impugned notice dated 23.01.2006 is set aside. However, this will not prejudice the right of the Department to proceed against M/s.Karpaga Electronics (P) Ltd. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
