Skip to main content

HC upholds attachment of immovable property transferred after service of recovery notice by Tax Recovery Officer

In D.S. Senthilvel  v. Tax Recovery Officer, the Petitioner had purchased an immovable property after service of a recovery notice by the TRO for recovery of arrears due under the ITL on the seller, but before the date of the attachment of the immovable property by the TRO. The Petitioner had objected to the attachment of the immovable property by the TRO by filing a writ petition to the HC on the ground of his being a bona fide purchaser of the immovable property for adequate consideration.

The HC held that the ITL contains a separate and distinct scheme of provisions for transfer of immovable property before and after the service of the recovery notice by the TRO. The ITL protects a buyer who purchases an immovable property for adequate consideration and without having knowledge of the seller’s default under the ITL, only if the purchase happens before the service of the recovery notice by the TRO. In the present case, because the purchase of the immovable property happened after service of the recovery notice, the Petitioner could not protect the validity of the purchase under the aforesaid provision of the ITL. The HC held that under the ITL, the seller loses competency to transfer immovable property after the service of the recovery notice by the TRO, and can do so only after obtaining the TRO’s permission.

In the present case, because the seller had no competency to transfer the immovable property after service of the recovery notice by the TRO, the HC held that the Petitioner could not have acquired a valid or legal title to the immovable property. The HC upheld the validity of the attachment.

However, the HC quashed the action of the TRO in declaring the transaction of purchase as void, and held that a transaction can be declared void either under the express provisions of the ITL or by a Civil Court.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more