Back
N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Suresh Kumar, C.Saravanan
T.Palanisamy, S/o.Thangavelu – Appellant
Versus
Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Department – Respondent
ORDER :
C. SARAVANAN, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the Impugned Communication/Order dated 07.01.2015 issued by the 1st respondent.
2. By the Impugned Communication dated 07.01.2015 addressed to the petitioner, the petitioner has been called upon to pay tax and interest upto 07.01.2015 of Rs.6,64,011/- (Tax of Rs.1,25,102/- and interest of Rs.5,52,814/-). Relevant portion of the Impugned Communication/Order dated 07.01.2015 issued purportedly under Section 24 -A of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (TNGST) Act, 1959, reads as under:-
“It was learnt that, you have purchased the immovable properties of the defaulters situated at Sy.No.55/1B, while pendency of charges, transfer of immovable, Pagalapalli Village, Dharmapuri Taluk and District property in favour of you was void as per Section 24A of TNGST Act, 1959 and also it is responsibility of the buyers to settle the entire Sales tax due held by the defaulted company namely Tvl.Swathi Cones, Sy.No.55/1B1, Pagalahalli Village, Salem Main Road, Dharmapuri Taluk and District.
In this circumstances, the buyers of the immovable properties namely Tvl.T.Palanisamy is hereby directed to pay the tax and interest upto 07-01-2015 of Rs.6,64,011/-
Transfers made by a defaulting taxpayer are void; bona fide purchasers must establish their claims through a civil suit under the TNGST Act.
A bona fide purchaser without notice of an encumbrance is protected under Section 24-A of the TNGST Act, 1959, reinforcing the importance of constructive notice criteria.
The court affirmed that earlier registered charges of financial corporations take precedence over later sales tax claims, emphasizing the significance of prior registration dates in determining legal....
The financial institution's charge takes precedence over tax claims due to earlier registration, establishing the priority of charges in property disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner was not liable to pay any additional differential premium and the Sales Tax Department could not claim ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that interest under Section 24(3) of the TNGST Act can be imposed only if an assessment has been framed, determining the additional turnover and ra....
The Income Tax Department cannot claim properties auctioned under the KGST Act for tax dues, as the KGST Act establishes a first charge on such properties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
