1. This petition is filed by M/s. Arjun Motors Pvt. Ltd. to set aside the order dated 20-3-2003 passed in C.Misc. No. 240/2002 on the file of the Spl. JMFC (Sales Tax) rejecting his objection in the said case.

2. The respondent No. 2 herein was an assessee and he was due in a sum of Rupees Twenty Lakhs towards sales tax and CST. Since respondent No. 2 has not paid the arrears of tax, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under S.13 (b) of the KST Act for recovery of Rs. 20 Lakhs from respondent No. 2. When the matter was pending before the Special JMFC (Sales Tax), Bangalore, the petitioner herein appeared as an objector and resisted the recovery proceedings against respondent No. 2. The contention taken by the petitioner in this revision petition is that the respondent No. 2 raised a loan from ICICI Bank. On being unable to repay the said loan to the bank, the bank issued a demand notice dated 23-11-2002 under S.13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein referred to as the "Securitisation Act") and a public notice has been issued about taking over possession of the property of respondent as per Annexure - C. The contention taken by the petitioner - objector is that on the very same day, the petitioner addressed a letter to the ICICI bank showing its willingness to purchase the property belonging to the assessee namely the respondent herein which had been taken possession of by the bank and the ICICI bank purchased the said property of the second respondent. There is no stipulation of clause that for the arrears of sales tax due by the respondent No. 2, the purchaser is liable to pay the said arrears of the assessee - company. Accordingly, the bank has given consent for him and entered into an agreement. The assessee has leased out the premises along with the plant and machinery to this petitioner. Since April 2002 it continues to be in possession as a lessee and the lease agreement had been entered into on 23-12-2001. The assessee as on date neither owns the property, plant and machinery nor is in possession of the property. Hence, this petition.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had entered into a lease agreement with the ICICI bank and continued to be in possession of the plant and machineries of the respondent No. 2 company. S.13 of the Securitisation Act provides measures for the recovery of the secured debt from the borrowers. The second respondent - company has become a sick industry. Therefore, under S.15 of the Sales Tax Act, tax if any payable by the assessee cannot be claimed from it by the concerned authorities. Therefore, the provisions of S.10 (4)(b)(c) and (d) are very much applicable. Under S.13 (3)(b), the sales tax Court cannot recover the amount from the transferee of the assets. Since respondent No. 2 approached the competent authority for winding up of the company, therefore, the revision petitioner who has taken the land, plant and machinery for lease from the ICICI bank is not liable to pay any tax due by the respondent No. 2. Hence prays for allowing the petition.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that this petitioner is none other than the son of the Managing Director of respondent No. 2. The application filed by the petitioner before the JMFC, Sales Tax Court is not at all maintainable and the trial Court is right in dismissing the objection filed by this petitioner with an observation that the petitioner is none other than the close relative of the managing director of respondent No. 2. The assessee was due in a sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs towards arrears of tax. Therefore, the trial Court is right in dismissing the petition and sufficient reasons were assigned by the trial Court that the petitioner was also one of the partners of the respondent No. 2 - company. The loan, if any, granted by the ICICI bank in favo