DAMERA RAMAKRISHNA Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER FAC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. All these writ petitions raise a similar question of law, hence, we are disposing of the matters by a common order.

(2.) The writ petitioners have challenged the attachment of the property by the fourth respondent by order dated 30-4-2004 in form No.5. A consequential notice to the order of attachment was passed under Section 17-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, (for short "the Act") on 6-2-2004. According to the attachment order and the notice under Section 17-A of the Act, one M/s. Mehar Tanneries Private Limited was assessee on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada, for the years 1993-94 to 1996-97 and fell in sales tax arrears to the tune of Rs.35,98,030/-. Several notices were issued for payment of the arrears and when arrears were not paid, the Sub-Registrar, Gannavaram, was also addressed a letter on 16-9-2003 by registered post with acknowledgment due requesting him not to register the immovable properties of the above Company. Meanwhile, M/s. Mehar Tanneries Private Limited, Vijayawada, sold its immovable properties comprising of land to an extent of Ac. 10.23 gts and building situated in it and registered it to different persons on 15-12-2003 and 29-12-2003. The property was sold for a consideration of Rs.18,75,000/- vide six registered documents. The Department maintained in the notice that M/s. Mehar Tanneries Private Limited, with an intention to evade tax legitimately due to the Department and to defraud the Government revenue, willfully sold and registered its immovable properties to different persons in spite of receipt of several notices for payment of sales tax arrears. Therefore, the Department maintained that the transfer of property by M/s. Mehar Tanneries Private Limited to the petitioners was void under Section 17-A of the Act as it had charge over the property under Section 16-C of the Act.

(3.) On the other hand, the case of the petitioners is that they had paid due consideration for the transactions and purchased the property through registered sale deeds. There was no method or no way out for the petitioners to know whether the seller was in arrears of sales tax or not, since, they purchased the property, which was registered by the Sub-Registrar, after obtaining non-encumbrance certificate of the property from the Revenue authorities and there was no other way for them to receive any knowledge with regard to the arrears of their seller on account of sales tax.