T. RAJA :- The present writ petition came to be filed challenging the notice issued by the first respondent/Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Srivilliputhur in his Roc. A3/2792/2002 dated March 24, 2008 seeking issuance of a writ of prohibition to prohibit the first respondent from proceeding further in pursuance of the impugned notice.

The writ petitioner purchased a property situated at door No. 63, 64 and 65, new No. 2, Koonnankulam South Last Street, Srivilliputhur measuring 1935.75 sq. ft. from the second respondent, M/s. Maya Exports, Srivilliputhur. After the said purchase, the same was also registered under the office of the sub-registrar, Srivilliputhur through a sale deed dated October 24, 2005.

The grievance of the petitioner herein is that after the purchase of the property from the second respondent by a registered sale deed on October 24, 2005, that too, after getting encumbrance certificate from the sub-registrar, Srivilliputhur, the petitioner becomes a bona fide purchaser. Therefore, he cannot be held liable for any attachment for sales tax arrears payable by the second respondent. In his further submission, it is contended that the impugned notice issued by the first respondent, after a period of two years from the date of purchase of the property inviting objection for the proposed auction under the Revenue Recovery Act for arrears of sales tax payable by the second respondent is without jurisdiction. Further, it is stated that the first respondent has not issued any notices under the Revenue Recovery Act in forms 4, 5, 7, 7A to the second respondent before issuing the impugned notice to the petitioner. Further, the first respondent has not furnished the details of the arrears of sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax Act year-wise. Further, when the first respondent has not attached the property of the second respondent prior to the sales transaction, it is not open to the first respondent to issue the present impugned notice, that too, after two years from the date of purchase by the petitioner, who is a bona fide purchaser. On that basis, he prayed for setting aside the impugned notice issued by the first respondent.

On the other hand, the first respondent by filing a detailed counter opposed the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition and placed his submissions for dismissal of the writ petition. According to the first respondent, the second respondent, M/s. Maya Exports, being manufacturers of cotton yarn, were assessee in the assessment circle of the DCTO, Srivilliputhur. At the time of the commencement of the business, the second respondent has availed of deferral of sales tax under the interest-free sales tax loan scheme during the period from 1996-97 to 2001-02. As per the eligibility certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (TIIC) dated December 6, 1996, the total amount of interest-free sales tax loan eligible for deferral was Rs. 57.18 lakhs. The repayment schedule started from December 1, 2005 to November 30, 2014. The second respondent after filing of the IFST loan under the said scheme amounting to Rs. 15.60 lakhs during the period from December 1, 1996 to March 31, 2003, which is payable from December 1, 2005 onwards. The second respondent failed to repay the loan as per the schedule. Though the abovesaid amount was collected by the second respondent from their consumers on their sales, the same was kept by the second respondent for nine years without any interest on condition to repay the dues from December 1, 2005 onwards. Though the partners of the second respondent - firm have executed agreement on March 14, 1997 with the Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Sivakasi, in regard to repayment of the loan, they have not repaid the arrears of the loan. Subsequently, certain immovable properties belong to the partners of the firm were attached by issue of form 4 notice on August 3, 2004. Thereafter, even gazette publication