9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibited by law from proceeding with the sale, the respondents are entitled to exclude the time during which the respondent could not proceed with the sale of the property. Only on this premise, the respondents wanted this Court to dismiss the writ petition. The perusal of the records discloses that the facts narrated by the petitioner with regard to the dates are admitted. The assessment order though passed on 28.09.1998 and the amount was determined long back, the property was attached in the year 2003. Despite the fact that there was an order of attachment even in the year 2003, there was no attempt to bring the property for sale. The period that can be excluded is also enumerated in Rule 68 (B) (2). The reason for the delay cannot be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR For Petitioner : Mr. N. Dilip Kumar For Respondent Nos. 1 2 : Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. V. Pandi, Government Advocate ORDER The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the orders of attachment passed by the first respondent both dated 27.01.2003 and the consequential proceeding of the third respondent dated 31.12.2014 in Na.Ka.No.192/2014 and quash the same and consequently issue a direction to the third respondent to remove the encumbrance made thereon in respect of the petitioner's property in 316A, 316B, Vittalapuram Village, Ottapidaram Taluk on 28.01.2003 in Doc.No.L1 L2 of 2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restraining the Income Tax Department from proceeding under Section 222(2) r/w second schedule Part-III Rule 68-(B). The only ground on which the petitioner challenges the order of third respondent is by relying upon Sub Rule 1 and 4 of Rule 68-B of second schedule which reads as follows. (1) No sale of immovable property shall be made under this Part after the expiry of three years from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to a dem and of any tax, interest, fine, penalty or any other sum, for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached, has become conclusive under the provisions of Section 245 -I or, as the case may be, final in terms of the provisions of Chapter XX. (4) Where the sale of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fically so provides, especially where, as a result of such inaction on the part of the Revenue, the assessee or the defaulter is entitled to a benefit. In view of Rule 68(B), the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench cannot be assailed and this Court is bound to follow the Division Bench judgment. 6.The learned counsel for the respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the facts that were narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ Petition are not disputed. It is the case of the respondents that the property in question was earlier mortgaged by the petitioner to the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Tuticorin and that the petitioner was prohibited from dealing with the property mortgag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. 9(i) The impugned order of attachment passed by the first respondent dated 27.01.2003 and the consequential proceeding of the third respondent dated 31.12.2014 are quashed. Consequently the third respondent is directed to remove the endorsement of encumbrance made in respect of the petitioner's property in Door No.316A, 316B, Vittalapuram Village, Ottapidaram Taluk. Though, the respondents are not permitted to bring the property for sale in view of the limitation standing in the way, it is the duty of the petitioner to pay the tax due to the respondent. 10.The right of the respondents to recover the tax from the petitioner by any other modes cannot be curtailed. The third respondent is directed to remove the endorsement for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
