9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fifth respondent are known to each other and are in the same business. The petitioner ought to have obtained the certificate or for prior permission from the Commercial Tax Department before purchasing the property as to whether the property was fully free from any encumbrance. Instead, the petitioner has blindly purchased the property perhaps colluding with the fifth respondent to defraud the revenue. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned communications dated 05.02.2021, 01.09.2020 and 22.02.2022 issued by the third respondent cannot be quashed. The petitioner will have to establish his bona fide before the trial Court by filing a suit establishing that the purchase of the property from the fifth respondent was bona fide . The writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 022 to substantiate the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser. Specifically, it is submitted that the charges created over the subject property as against the arrears for the assessment year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 were cancelled, as the fifth respondent had discharged the tax liability and that at the time of purchase of the property on 30.03.2017, there was no encumbrance reflected against the property. It is therefore submitted that the impugned proceedings seeking to attach the property purchased by the petitioner on 30.03.2017 from the fifth respondent are liable to be quashed. 3. Defending the impugned order, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 would draw attention to para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner might have known that certain documents were pending collection for 2013-14 and 2014-15 and there was a shop inspection by the enforcement wing officials on 12.05.2015 and 12.06.2015 and the case is pending process in the assessment circle and there would be further demand are raisable for the assessment year 2015-16. The Petitioner (purchaser) is a dealer in glazed tiles and he very well knowing the procedure for collection of arrears due in tax by the authority. 11. The respondent No.5 is also a dealer in glazed tiles and the purchaser (Petitioner) would be aware of the business activities of the respondent No.5. It is submitted that both of them collide each other and done to transfer of the immovable property with intention to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year 2013-14 2014-15 in WP.No.23355/2016 and WP.No.23356/2016 respectively. The Hon'ble High court in their orders dated: 02.12.2016 as under. Para 6(1) For the balance Amount of disputed tax and penalty, the petitioner firm in both the cases shall execute personal bond with the Appellate Authority with a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Following the orders of the Hon'ble the High Court, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Thanjavur had received the personal security bond and passed revised stay orders for both years (2013-14 and 2014-15) and communicated to this office and the appeal were pending. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e dealer as a result of the completion of the proceedings. In this case, assessment was completed for the assessment year 2015-2016 on 27.09.2019 during the pendency of the proceedings for completion of the assessment for the assessment year 2015-2016. Further, the earlier charge that was created was cancelled pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.Nos. 23355 and 23356 of 2016 dated 02.12.2016. Para 6 of the order reads as under:- Para 6(1) For the balance Amount of disputed tax and penalty, the petitioner firm in both the cases shall execute personal bond with the Appellate Authority with a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Following the orders of the Hon'ble the High Court, the Appellate De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to whether the property was fully free from any encumbrance. Instead, the petitioner has blindly purchased the property perhaps colluding with the fifth respondent to defraud the revenue. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned communications dated 05.02.2021, 01.09.2020 and 22.02.2022 issued by the third respondent cannot be quashed. The petitioner will have to establish his bona fide before the trial Court by filing a suit establishing that the purchase of the property from the fifth respondent was bona fide . It is needless to state that in such proceeding, the petitioner will have to array the Officials of the Commercial Tax Department, namely the respondents 1 to 3 as defendants. Subject to the petitioner's establishment of his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
