MAHARASHTRA AGRO PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to allow the petitioner to continue his business and to reopen the factory premises forthwith.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 M/s Growell Agri Products Pvt. Ltd. was running a factory at Plot No. W-25 in the Old Industrial Area, Bahadurgarh. Respondent No. 4 sold the land, building, plant and machinery to the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 27.9.2004. However, before the sale was effected by the said respondent, an order of assessment under Haryana Local Area Development Tax Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'LADT Act') was passed on 19.3.2004 whereby a sum of Rs. 3,06,408/- was found as a tax due payable by respondent No. 4. On account of the failure of respondent No. 4 to discharge the said liability, a notice dated 20.8.2004 was issued by the Assistant Collector, Excise and Taxation First Grade calling upon respondent No. 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 3,06,408/- on or before 31.8.2004 failing which recovery was contemplated to be made by way of arrest warrant and attachment. Subsequently, warrant of attachment in terms of Section 72 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 was issued on 17.9.2004. Vide another communication dated 20.9.2004, the respondent No. 4 was warned that plot No. E-25 Old Industrial Area, Bahadurgarh has been attached and that respondent No. 4 is not permitted to transfer the plot or resale without clearing the arrears. Since the entire arrears was not paid, the respondent took over the management of the factory of the petitioner on 13.12.2004.

(3.) IT is the stand of the respondents that additional demand of Rs. 7,78,936/- is still pending against respondent No. 4 created in the years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 under the LADT Act. It was also stated that the assessment for the year 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Haryana Local Area Development Act, 2000 are still pending and additional demand is likely to be created. It was thus pleaded that the transfer of immovable property with the intention of defrauding the State of any tax or other due is void against any claim in respect of any tax or any dues payable in terms of Section 9(4) of the Haryana Local Area Development Act, 2000. It was denied that the order of attachment was with regard to an amount of Rs. 3,06,408/-. It was pleaded that since the demand pending against respondent No. 4, therefore, the petitioner itself is responsible for the loss as alleged as he could not have purchased the property in dispute knowing well that the amount was outstanding and recoverable from respondent No. 4.