STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. M CAUVERY AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendants are the appellants. THE case in brief is as follows : THE plaintiff filed a suit to set aside the attachment of the suit properties made by the second defendant and for permanent injunction from bringing the same for sale to realise the sales tax arrears and also penalty due by one Malayan Chettiar. She purchased the properties for a valid consideration from one Dhanalakshmi Ammal under a registered sale deed dated March 1, 1973. She is in possession and enjoyment of the properties in her own right and paying the municipal tax. THE second defendant filed a written statement that the said Malayan Chettiar was an assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, assessed to sales tax from the year 1957-58 and he was under arrears of sales tax from 1957 to 1963. On account of the tax arrears, there was statutory charge over the properties. THE plaintiff issued a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the defendants, objecting to the attachment. THE plaintiff is not liable to pay any sales tax and the attachment is also illegal. Hence, the suit.

(2.) THE defendants resisted the suit, stating that the suit properties were attached to the sales tax arrears due from Malayan Chettiar. He was an assessee, having been assessed for sales tax from 1957-58. THE tax for the year 1957 to 1963 still remains unpaid. THE property has been transferred subsequently to the accrual of the sales tax and, as such, there is a statutory charge on the properties. All the subsequent transfers are only subject to the charge. THE subsequent transfer, viz. , in favour of Govindasamy Chettiar, Dhanalakshmi Ammal and the plaintiff will not confer any absolute title. THEy are entitled to recover the arrears by proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff further stated that notice of provisional assessment of demand was made on May 2, 1958 as per exhibit B. 1 and a final assessment for the year 1958-59 was passed on May 26, 1962 as per exhibit B. 2. THE learned counsel for the plaintiff strenuously contended that the plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of earlier proceedings and as such the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed by him. A number of documents have been filed on the side of the plaintiff to show that the properties have changed hands from Malayan Chettiar even in August, 1962. It is, therefore, evidently clear that Malayan Chettiar and his wife had conveyed the property on August 31, 1962, i. e. , only after the provisional assessment demand as well as the final order passed by the sales tax authorities. Exhibit B2, the final assessment order, is dated May 26, 1962 and only within the period of three months, the property has been conveyed by Malayan Chettiar.