POORANCHAND VED PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner purchased house No. 17 in Topi Bazar, Lashkar, from Narain Das, Phul Bai and sons of Narain Das for a consideration of Rs. 31,000 by a registered sale deed dated 17th June, 1969 (annexure 1 ). The purchase according to him was bona fide and for consideration. The house was, however, attached by the Sales Tax Officer-cum-Additional Tahsildar, Gwalior, on 23rd September, 1969, in proceedings for recovery of sales tax against Narain Das. According to the petitioner, he was not at all aware that any sales tax proceedings were going on or that Narain Das was an assessee and was in arrears of tax. The petitioner submitted an objection petition in respect of the attachment of the house before the Sales Tax Officer, but it was dismissed by order dated 23rd December, 1969 (annexure 2 ). The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, The Sub-Divisional Officer remanded the case by order dated 8th April, 1970, vide aunexure 3. The Additional Tahsildar again rejected the objection petition by order dated 28th August, 1970, vide annexure 4 and the order was maintained in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 26th November, 1970, vide annexure 5. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed this petition praying that the impugned order be quashed.

(3.) IT is not disputed that recovery proceedings were going on against the assessee at the time of the sale in favour of the petitioner. The question, therefore, is whether the house in question is liable to be attached in proceedings for recovery of sales tax against Narain Das in view of Section 33-A of the M. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which is reproduced below for facility of reference :