DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The petitioners have assailed a notice of demand dated March 23, 2017 and a notice for immediate payment of outstanding dues dated November 2, 2017 issued by Kolkata Municipal Corporation (K.M.C.).
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the first petitioner had purchased the flat in a sale conducted by the authorised officer of State Bank of India, exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The sale was free from all encumbrances. The first petitioner, therefore, cannot be foisted with any Property Tax liability for the period prior to the date of the sale. The sale certificate was issued on May 15, 2017. The first petitioner is liable for Property Tax on and from May 15, 2017. The first petitioner is not liable for Property Tax or any other liability in respect of the flat prior to May 15, 2017. The first petitioner is a bona fide purchaser without notice of the past liabilities. The two impugned notices raise demands upon the first petitioner on account of Property Tax for periods prior to May 15, 2017. The petitioners are not liable to pay such Property Tax. In support of such contentions, learned Advocate for the petitioners has relied upon 2013 SCC Online All page 13203 (Smt. Rekha Sahu v. UCO Bank and Ors.) and 2009 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases page 486 (AI Champdany Industries Limited v. Official Liquidator &Anr.).
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the Bank has submitted that, the property was put on sale on the basis of the terms and conditions of the sale notice. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the terms and conditions of the sale notice governing the sale. He has submitted that, it was the duty of the first petitioner, as the purchaser, to make necessary enquiries with regard to the liabilities of the property. The petitioners not having done so, it does not lie in their mouth to contend that, they are not liable for the Property Tax dues prior to May 15, 2017. Significantly, the sale notice specifies that, the property would be sold on as is where is basis. He has submitted that, the petitioners had inspected the property. He has relied upon Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon 2008 Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases page 125 (Transcore v. Union of India and Anr.) and 2012 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases page 197 (Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and Ors. v. Raghu Nath Gupta and Ors.).;