JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts below is the appellant. 2. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and also consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff’s husband was doing business in rubber. The sales tax department sent two Form 4 notice to the plaintiff claiming a sum of Rs.14,280 by way of arrears of sales tax for the periods 1978-79 and 1981-82. The plaintiff is not doing any business. Even before the order of assessment, the suit property was gifted in favour of the plaintiff by her husband. This property cannot be attached by the sales tax department for the arrears of tax payable, if any by her husband. Hence, the suit. 3. The defendants resisted the suit stating that the suit property belonged to the husband of the plaintiff. The second defendant sent a notice to the husband of the plaintiff on 9.2.1981 claiming the arrears of tax. However, on 30.10.1981 the property was transferred in the name of the plaintiff. Only thereafter, form 4 notice was issued to the plaintiff. The suit property is liable for the sales tax arrears and a charge was also legally created. The plaintiff cannot claim any right over this property, which was secured by her on the basis of a document executed by her husband with an intention to defeat the right of the department. 4. The trial Court framed 4 issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-15 were marked and on the side of the defendants, Exs.B-1 to B-14 were marked and no witness was examined. The trial Court dismissed the suit and aggrieved against this, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No.14 of 1990 on the file of Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, dis missed the appeal and aggrieved against this, the present second appeal is filed. 5. At the time of admission of this second appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court. Whether the courts below are correct in applying Sec.24 of the General Sales Tax Act to the facts of this case while the transfer by way of gift in favour of the plaintiff was long before the assessment itself? 6. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. 7. Whether the courts below are correct in applying Sec.24 of the General Sales Tax Act to the facts of this case while the transfer by way of gift in favour of the plaintiff was long before the assessment itself? 6. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. 7. The points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and consequential relief of mandatory injunction? (2) Whether the suit property can be proceeded for the arrears of sales tax? (3) To what relief? 8.Points: There is no dispute that the suit property originally belonged to the husband of the plaintiff. It is admitted that the husband of the plaintiff was dealing in rubber products and he had also secured a licence number for doing the said business. For the year 1978-79, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,462 by way of sales tax. He preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Tirunelveli and later, it was reduced to Rs.1,068. The suit property was gifted in favour of the plaintiff by her husband under Ex.A-3, dated 30.10.1981. Learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff contended that even prior to the assessment order, the property has been gifted away to her and under the circumstances, the Department has no right whatsoever to proceed against the suit property and hence, a declaration has to be given that the suit property is not liable to be proceeded for recovery of the sales tax arrears and also consequential relief of permanent injunction. 9. The plaintiff has filed Exs.A-1 and A-2 dated 25.10.1984 relating to the demand notices for taking proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. Exs.A-4 to A-8 are the house tax receipts, showing the payment made by P.W.1. Ex.A-11 is the notice sent on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.A-13 and A-14 are the reply sent by the authorities. Ex.A-15 is the document given by the revenue authorities in favour of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendants, Exs.B-1 and B-2 dated 18.2.1981, demand notice sent by the second defendant to the husband of P.W.1 have been filed. The other documents filed on the side of the defendant relate to the assessment order as well as proceedings taken for recovery of the amount under the revenue recovery proceedings. 10. On the side of the defendants, Exs.B-1 and B-2 dated 18.2.1981, demand notice sent by the second defendant to the husband of P.W.1 have been filed. The other documents filed on the side of the defendant relate to the assessment order as well as proceedings taken for recovery of the amount under the revenue recovery proceedings. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff contended that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the defendants have neither power nor jurisdiction to recover the tax invoking Sec.24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The plaintiff became the owner of the property even before the assessment was made, and, as such, the property cannot be made liable for the tax payable by the original owner. The plaintiff cannot be construed as a defaulter as mentioned under the provisions of the General Sales Tax Act. The defendants cannot go into the question regarding the validity of the gift deed as it has come into existence even before the assessment was made. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff mainly contended that even before passing of the assessment order, the property was gifted in her favour and, as such, the authorities concerned have no right whatsoever to proceed. Sec.24(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax is as follows: Payment and Recovery of Tax: (1) The tax assessed or has become payable under this Act shall be paid in such manner and in such instalments, if any, and within such time, as may be specified in the notice of assessment, not being less than twenty one days from the date of service of the notice. If default is made in paying according to the notice of assessment, the whole of the amount outstanding on the date of default shall become immediately due and shall be a charge on the properties of the person or persons liable to pay the tax under this Act. 12. If default is made in paying according to the notice of assessment, the whole of the amount outstanding on the date of default shall become immediately due and shall be a charge on the properties of the person or persons liable to pay the tax under this Act. 12. Sec.24(A) of the said Act reads as follows: Transfers to defraud revenue void: Where, during the pendency of any proceeding under the Act or after completion thereof, any dealer creates a charge on, or parts with the possession (by way of sale, mortgage, gift, exchange or any other mode of transfer whatsoever) of any of his assets in favour of any other person, with the intention to defraud the revenue, such charge or transfer shall be void as against any claim in respect of any tax, or any other sum payable by the dealer as a result of the completion of the said proceeding or otherwise: Provided that, such charge or transfer shall not be void, if it is made- (i) for adequate consideration and without notice of the pendency of such proceedings under this Act or, as the case may be, without notice of such tax or other sum payable by the dealer; or (ii) with the previous permission of the assessing authority. 13. It is clear from the language employed under Sec.24 that if any tax is assessed or has become payable under that Act, a charge is created on the properties of the person or persons liable to pay the tax. In view of Sec.24(A), if a transfer is made to defraud the revenue, it is void under law. I am of the view that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that only after the assessment order is passed, there should not be any transfer of property. A plain reading o Sec.24 clearly indicates that it any tax is payable under the Act also, a charge will be created. 14. As adverted to, under Exs.B-1 and B-2 dated 18.2.1981, the department has already called upon the husband of P.W.1 to pay the sales tax. Admittedly, the gift deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff only on 30.10.1981, thereby indicating that only after the demand of the sales tax, the impugned document was executed in favour of the plaintiff. 14. As adverted to, under Exs.B-1 and B-2 dated 18.2.1981, the department has already called upon the husband of P.W.1 to pay the sales tax. Admittedly, the gift deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff only on 30.10.1981, thereby indicating that only after the demand of the sales tax, the impugned document was executed in favour of the plaintiff. It is no longer open to the plaintiff, to contend that the gift deed was earlier in point of time and thereafter only, the authorities have demanded the tax. Hence, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that both the courts below have rightly appreciated the position of law as well as facts and there is no reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the points are answered accordingly. 15. For the reasons stated above, the second appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.