9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inference cannot be countenanced purely on the basis that the parties concerned reside in the same area or even because the original title deeds were missing as per the public notice. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Petitioner had prior notice, either actual or constructive, of the existing charge. Whether Section 24-A of the TNGST Act contains a stipulation that the charge can be enforced even against a transferee without notice? - HELD THAT:- From the language of Section 24(2), it is clear that a statutory charge is created in favour of the sales tax department upon failure to pay sales tax within 21 days of the date of receipt of a notice of assessment. Therefore, from the counter affidavit, it appears that a statutory charge was created over the property on or about 31.06.1996. More importantly, when the language of Section 24-A is examined, there is nothing therein that suggests that the statutory charge would be enforceable against a transferee without notice. There is no evidence that there was collusion between the Petitioner and the erstwhile owner. Equally, from the documents on record, the Petitioner appears to be a bona fide purchaser without notice, either ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... calling upon the public to raise claims/objections, if any, to the proposed purchase of the said property within one week from the date of publication of the notice. The public were also put on notice that the original title deeds were missing and that the Petitioner would not be responsible for any claims made in respect of the said Property after purchase thereof in the event of non-receipt of objections. Subsequently, by Sale Deed dated 09.11.1998, which was registered in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Thirupur, as Document No.2774/1998, the petitioner acquired the said property from M.Bhagyavathi for a total sale consideration of ₹ 3 lakhs. The Petitioner appears to have obtained an encumbrance certificate dated 02.12.1998 for the period November 1996 to December 1998 and the encumbrance certificate shows nil encumbrance during the aforesaid period. The Impugned Notice, as is evident from the notice, was sent to the Petitioner about eight years later. 5.The learned counsel for the Petitioner adverted to the facts set out above and contended that the Respondent cannot claim sales tax dues of the erstwhile owner from the Petitioner. He further contended that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll, so far as may be, apply to such charge. Nothing in this section applies to the charge for trustee on the trust property for expenses properly incurred in the execution of his trust, and save as otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, no charge shall be enforced against any property in the hands of the person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge. (emphasis added) 10.From a perusal of Section 100 of the TPA, it is clear that, unless expressly provided otherwise by any law for the time being in force, unlike a mortgage, a charge can be enforced against the property in the hands of a transferee only if the transferee had notice of the prior charge and was not a bona fide purchaser. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the Respondent admitted that the Sub- Registrar concerned was not informed about the existence of the charge in favour of the Respondent. It is also clear from the encumbrance certificate, which was obtained by the Petitioner in December 1998, that no charge was reflected in respect of the said property up to December 1998. The allegation t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be void if made for adequate consideration and without notice of the pendency of proceedings under the TNGST Act. In fact, this question has already been considered and answered by a Division Bench of this Court in DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER Vs. RK STEELS, reported in 1998 108 STC 161 (DB-Mad) wherein the Court followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1971 SC 1201 (cited supra) and held that the decisions of earlier Division Benches of this Court in DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER Vs. ASHA KUMARI reported in 1985 WLR 240 and COROMANDEL INDAG PRODUCTS PVT LTD Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER reported in 1993 (3) MTCR 8 did not consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1971 SC 1201 and that, therefore, the said decisions could not be followed. Subsequently, in a recent judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in GUPTA Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, W.P.No.6267 of 2006, decided on 09.03.2018, the earlier Division Bench Judgment in R.K.STEELS CASE (cited above) was followed. 13.From the aforesaid discussion and the precedents adverted to above, the principles of law that can be gleaned in respect of the enforcement of charges, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
