B SURESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Letters Patent Appeal No. 100 of 1999 is before us on a reference order dated 19. 12. 2002 made by a Division Bench consisting of two Learned Judges of this Court. The question referred to the Full Bench for answer is as here-under:-

(2.) HOWEVER, the Revenue relied upon the decision of this Court rendered by two Division Benches in the case of Coramandel Indag Products India Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and others reported in 1993 (3) M. T. C. R. 81 and in the case of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Vs. Azha Kumari reported in 1985 W. L. R. 240. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the Division Bench reasoned as here-under and requested the Honourable Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench. The reasons given by the Division Bench in making the reference is extracted as here-under:-

(3.) THE scope of the reference, in our considered view, is not only that we have to decide the question of law, but also the question as to whether the appellant is a bonafide purchaser without notice of the charge under Section 24 (1) of the Act and as such whether his property cannot be proceeded against for the recovery of sales tax arrears. To decide that the entire factual matrix of the case has to be set out and the facts are as follows:-'for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit'. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:-