The liability for tax assessment remains with the property owners despite possession being transferred to a bank under the SARFAESI Act.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellants allege that the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 29.10.2025, is in error because, it has been issued without noticing the fact that the building in question – against which the tax assessment has been made – has been taken over by the 4^th respondent – Canara Bank, in the exercise of their powers under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 (SARFAESI ACT).

2. Sri.G.Hariharan – learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that, since the property has already been taken over in possession and is now proposed to be sold by the 4^th respondent – Canara Bank, the assessment ought to be honoured by them.

3. We notice that the learned Single Judge has repelled the afore contention, holding that the factum of the property having been taken over in possession by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act would have no consequence on its ownership; and hence that the liability to pay the tax assessed continues with the appellants.

4. Sri.B.S.Syamanthak – learned Government Pleader, submitted that since the assessment has not been challenged by the appellants at any point of time and have accepted the same, the present attempt to ‘scuttle’ the recovery proceedings can only be construed to be mala fide, aimed at experimentation.

5. There is force in the afore contention of the learned Government Pleader – as also found by the learned Single Judge – because, the assessment over the building is in the name of the appellants; and they had not challenged the same. Their only contention is that recovery based on such assessment is not possible because, the property has now been taken over by the 4th respondent – Bank.

6. As again rightly found by the learned Single Judge, the taking over of possession of the property by the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act would have no bearing on the taxable incident - which, in this case, admittedly on the appellants, being the admitted owners.

We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge;

and, consequently, dismiss this Appeal.

Sd/-