- (1.) The present writ petition came to be filed challenging the notice issued by the first Respondent/Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Srivilliputhur in his Roc.A3/2792/2002 dated March 24, 2008 seeking issuance of a writ of prohibition to prohibit the first Respondent from proceeding further in pursuance of the impugned notice.
(2.) The writ Petitioner purchased a property situated at door No. 63, 64 and 65, new No. 2, Koonnankulam South Last Street, Srivilliputhur measuring 1935.75 sq.ft. from the second Respondent, M/s. Maya Exports, Srivilliputhur. After the said purchase, the same was also registered under the office of the sub-registrar, Srivilliputhur through a sale deed dated October 24, 2005.
(3.) The grievance of the Petitioner herein is that after the purchase of the property from the second Respondent by a registered sale deed on October 24, 2005, that too, after getting encumbrance certificate from the sub-registrar, Srivilliputhur, the Petitioner becomes a bona fide purchaser. Therefore, he cannot be held liable for any attachment for sales tax arrears payable by the second Respondent. In his further submission, it is contended that the impugned notice issued by the first Respondent, after a period of two years from the date of purchase of the property inviting objection for the proposed auction under the Revenue Recovery Act for arrears of sales tax payable by the second Respondent is without jurisdiction. Further, it is stated that the first Respondent has not issued any notices under the Revenue Recovery Act in forms 4, 5, 7, 7A to the second Respondent before issuing the impugned notice to the Petitioner. Further, the first Respondent has not furnished the details of the arrears of sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax Act year-wise. Further, when the first Respondent has not attached the property of the second Respondent prior to the sales transaction, it is not open to the first Respondent to issue the present impugned notice, that too, after two years from the date of purchase by the Petitioner, who is a bona fide purchaser. On that basis, he prayed for setting aside the impugned notice issued by the first Respondent.;