9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (Commercial Taxes), Zone III, Madras-1, to forbear from selling the properties of the second respondent herein in pursuance of the notice of sale of movable property in Form No. 3, Reference No. 6281 of 1981-C dated 25th April, 1981. It is, inter alia, contended in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and sworn to by the manager of the petitioner-bank, that the second res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent resulted in the first respondent effecting attachment of the movable properties of the second respondent which had earlier been hypothecated by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner-bank, as early as on July 11, 1974. On coming to know of the attachment of the hypothecated movables, the petitioner addressed the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sowcarpet Circle, to release the attachm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r other and when matters came to a crucial stage, the second respondent moved the Government and obtained permission in G.O. Rt. No. 254 dated August 4, 1981, to pay 20 per cent. of the arrears in the first instance and the balance in subsequent instalments and even then, it failed to fulfil the several conditions of the Government order regarding payment of the current dues regularly. The second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner-bank. The sale notice was issued on April 25, 1981, and the same is in accordance with the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. The hypothecation in favour of the bank is not a secured debt which could be treated in preference to the Government dues that can be recovered as a prior charge if the goods hypothecated are available for being proceeded against and attached for tax arrears. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
