Judgment :- 1. The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants. 2. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit to set aside the attachment of the suit properties made by the 2nd defendant and for permanent injunction from bringing the same for sale to realise the sales tax arrears and also penalty due by one Malayan Chettiar. She purchased the properties for a valid consideration from one Dhanalakshmi Ammal under a registered sale deed dated 1.3.73. She is in possession and enjoyment of the properties in her own right and paying the municipal tax. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement that the said Malayan Chettiar was an assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, assessed to sales tax from the year 1957-1958 and he was under the arrears of sales tax from 1957 to 1963. On account of the tax arrears, there was statutory charge over the properties. The plaintiff issued a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the defendants, objecting the attachment. The plaintiff issued a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil procedure, to the defendants, objecting the attachment. The plaintiff is not liable to pay any sales tax and the attachment is also illegal. Hence, the suit. 3. The defendants resisted the suit, stating that the suit properties were attached to the sales tax arrears due from Malayan Chettiar. He was an assessee, having been assessed for sales tax from 1957-1958. The tax for the year 1957 to 1963 still remains unpaid. The property has been transferred subsequently to the accrual of the sales tax and, as such, there is a statutory charge on the properties. All the subsequent transfers are only subject to the charge. The subsequent transfer viz., in favour of Govindasamy Chettiar, Dhanalakshmi Ammal and the plaintiff will not confer any absolute title. They are entitled to recover the arrears by proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. 4. The trial Court framed 6 issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, Exs. A-1 to A-40 were marked and P.W.1 was examined. On the side of the defendants Exs. B-1 and B-2 were marked and D.W.1 was examined. They are entitled to recover the arrears by proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. 4. The trial Court framed 6 issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, Exs. A-1 to A-40 were marked and P.W.1 was examined. On the side of the defendants Exs. B-1 and B-2 were marked and D.W.1 was examined. The trial Court dismissed the suit and aggrieved against this, the plaintiff filed A.S. 18/85 on the file of Sub-Court, Salem and the appeal was allowed and the Judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside and the suit was decreed. Aggrieved against this, the defendants have come forward with the present appeal. 5. The defendants/appellants raised the following substantial question of law: “When the assessee had alienated the property subsequent to the provisional assessment notice, would not such a sale be covered by Section 24 of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959?” 6. The points that arise for consideration are (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction? (2) Whether the attachment made by the defendants is liable to be set aside? (3) Whether the defendants have got any statutory charge over the properties in respect of the sales tax arrears of Malayan Chettiar? and (4) To what relief? 7. It is admitted that the suit property originally belonged to one Malayan Chettiar. The said Malayan Chettiar and his wife Dhanalakshmi Ammal purchased the properties under a registered document dated 15.4.1959. They sold the property to one Govindasamy Chettiar under a registered document dated 31.8.1962. The said Govindasamy Chettiar sold the same to one Dhanalakshmi Ammal under a registered document dated 11.3.1968. Thereafter, the plaintiff purchased it from the said Dhanalakshmi Ammal on 1.3.1973. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff stated that from the date of purchase the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the municipal registry the assessment was also changed in her name and she has been paying the tax. This being so, the second defendant had attached the property for realisation of sales-tax arrears due from one. Malayan Chettiar and on the date of attachment the said Malayan Chettiar had no right on the title and under the circumstances, the attachment has to be set aside and the plaintiff claimed the relief of permanent injunction from bringing the property to sale. 8. Malayan Chettiar and on the date of attachment the said Malayan Chettiar had no right on the title and under the circumstances, the attachment has to be set aside and the plaintiff claimed the relief of permanent injunction from bringing the property to sale. 8. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff further stated that notice of provisional assessment of demand was made on 2.5.1958 as per Ex. B-1 and a final assessment for the year 1958-1959 was passed on 26.5.1962 as per Ex. B-2. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff strenuously contended that the plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of earlier proceedings and as such the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed by him. A number of documents have been filed on the side of the plaintiff to show that the properties have changed hands from Malayan Chettiar even in August, 1962. It is, therefore, evidently clear that Malayan Chettiar and his wife had conveyed the property on 31.8.1962, i.e., only after the provisional assessment demand as well as the final order passed by the sales-tax authorities, Ex. B-2 the final assessment order dated 26.5.1962 and only within the period of three months, the property has been conveyed by Malayan Chettiar. 9. The learned Counsel for the defendants contended that there will be a statutory charge relating to the property of the assessee and any sale of the property by the assessee would be subject to the payment of sales-tax amount. According to Ex. B-1 the sales-tax amount was Rs. 540/- and in the final assessment order Ex.B-2 the tax arrears came to Rs. 1,390.52. However, the demand notice under Ex. A-36 dated 18.8.1982 disclosed that a sum of Rs. 61,616.70 has been claimed by way of tax arrears as well as penalty. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff contended that no particulars were furnished by the sales-tax officials as to how such an amount has been arrived at. No-doubt, the amount arrived at by way of sales-tax arrears and penalty appears to be on the higher side, but, this cannot be gone into in this proceedings. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff contended that no particulars were furnished by the sales-tax officials as to how such an amount has been arrived at. No-doubt, the amount arrived at by way of sales-tax arrears and penalty appears to be on the higher side, but, this cannot be gone into in this proceedings. The only question that can be gone into is that whether there was any statutory charge relating to the payment of sales-tax payable by Malayah Chettiar and under the circumstances, none of the alienations made by Malayan Chettiar to the third party, subsequently, from the said third party the plaintiff had purchased the property would be protected of not? The contention that the plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser for value, without notice has no relevancy so far as this case is concerned, if the defendants were able to establish that the statutory charge is created relating to the sales-tax payable by Malayan Chettiar. The reasons stated supra would clearly establish that the final assessment was made in May, 1962 and the property was disposed of by the assessee in August, 1962. This is a crucial factor to be kept in mind to decide the case between the parties. 10. Section 24(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales-tax Act reads as follows: “Any tax assessed on or has become payable by, or any other amount due under this Act, shall, subject to the claim of the Government in respect of land revenue and the claim of the Land Development Bank in regard to the property mortgaged to it under section 28(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Land Development Banks Act, 1934 (Tamil Nadu Act X of 1934), have priority over all other claims against the property of the said dealer or person and the same may without prejudice to any other mode of collection be recovered: — (a) as land revenue, or (b) on application to any Magistrate by such Magistrate as if it were a fine imposed by him; Provided that no proceedings for such recovery shall be taken or continued as long as he has, in regard to the payment of such tax, other amount or fee, as the case may be, complied with an order by any of the authorities to whom the dealer or person has appealed or applied for revision, under sections 31, 31-A, 33, 35, 36, 37 or 38.” 11. Section 26 of the aforesaid Act relates to further mode of recovery. Section 26(6) of the Act reads as follows: “Any amount which a person is required to pay to the assessing authority or for which he is personally liable to the assessing authority under this section shall, if it remains unpaid, be a charge on the properties of the said person and may be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue.” 12. It is evidently clear from the language employed under Section 24(2) of the said Act that any tax or assessed or has become payable or any other amount due under this Act, will have priority over the claims against the property of the said dealer or person and the same may be recovered. It, therefore contemplates that the arrear of sales-tax payable if any, will have priority over all other claims except those two categories mentioned in sub-clause (2) and this being so, prima tacie, it is clear that any alienation of the property made on and after the assessment of the sales-tax would not be valid unless and until the sales-tax amount due and payable is cleared. The contention of the plaintiff that the amount claimed is excessive and other matters are to be agitated before the sales-tax forum and this cannot be gone into in the present suit filed by him to set aside the attachment order. 13. The learned Counsel for the defendants relied on the case of Balkishan Goenka v. Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer for Sales Tax Collection, (1971) 28 S.T.C. 572 , wherein it is stated that “It is the fiction of treating the ‘arrears of sales tax’ as if it were an ‘arrear of land revenue’ under section 24(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, that attracts section 52 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. Under section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, charge is created over the property of a dealer for all arrears of sales tax or dues payable under the Sales Tax Act by such dealer. Under section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, charge is created over the property of a dealer for all arrears of sales tax or dues payable under the Sales Tax Act by such dealer. As by the creation of the statutory charge, the property is burdened, until it is relieved of the same by a process known to law, a purchaser of such property cannot escape by merely stating that he is not factually a defaulter as is properly understood and his property cannot in any manner be proceeded with notwithstanding the fact that the property is statutorily charged for the payment of arrears of sales tax due by the person who conv eyed the property to him.” This decision is exactly applicable to the case on hand. 14. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff relied on the case of P. Kannamba v. The Board of Revenue, (1967) 1 M.L.J. 56 = 80 L.W. 520, wherein it is observed that ‘Section 26 of the Revenue Recovery Act will not enable the collector to attach the property of the assessee when they have ceased to be his property at the time when the attachment is sought to be effected. 15. This decision is not applicable to the case on hand, because the property has passed on from the hands of the assessee even prior to the attachment and as such, in view of the charge as per section 24(2) of the Act, this decision cannot be applicable. 16. The plaintiff also relied on the case of K. Nagammal v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, (1973) 31 S.T.C. 607 . This decision also has no application to the case on hand, because, it has been held that the property was not the property of the defaulter on the day when the action was initiated to attach and sell the same and the statutory authority functioning under the Revenue Recovery Act could neither attach nor sell the same as if the property was that of the defaulter. 17. The learned Counsel for the defendants also relied on the case of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer v. Azha Kumari, 1985 Writ. 17. The learned Counsel for the defendants also relied on the case of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer v. Azha Kumari, 1985 Writ. L.R. 240, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that ‘under Section 24(2) of the TNGST Act a charge was created over the properties for the sales-tax amounts due by the transferor even before the transfer was actually effected and the said charge can be enforced against the properties, which are in the hands of the transferee. Thus even if the transferee is not taken to be the defaulter, the properties in his hands can be proceeded against under the provision of the Revenue Reco very Act in view of the statutory provisions in S. 24(1) read with S. 24(2). This decision is exactly applicable to the case on hand. 18. Reliance was also placed in an unreported Judgment in the case of Central Bank of India v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another, W.A. No. 981 of 1989 dated 29.08.1997, by the learned Counsel for the defendants. In this case, reliance was placed on the case of State Bank of Bikaneer and Jaipur v. National Iron and Steel Rolling Corporation and others, (1995) 96 S.T.C. 612, and it is a decision under the Rajasthan Sales-tax Act. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that there is a provision under the Rajasthan Sales-tax Act creating a first charge on the property of the dealer and similar provision is not available and as such this decision cannot be of any use. Although the term ‘first charge’ is not seen under section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, it is evidently clear that a statutory charge has been created and as per Ex. B-1 and B-2 it is evidently clear that even prior to sale, the final order of assessment it has been made by the competent authority and under the circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief and the only course open to him is to move the sales-tax authorities for ascertaining the correct amount payable. Unfortunately, the lower appellate Court misdirected itself and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff on the simple ground that on the date of attachment, the assessee was not the owner and moreover, the plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Unfortunately, the lower appellate Court misdirected itself and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff on the simple ground that on the date of attachment, the assessee was not the owner and moreover, the plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. These considerations are irrelevant to decide a dispute between the parties, more so, when a statutory charge is created, the Court is not entitled to go into these questions and as there is erroneous application of law, I am of the view that the finding given by the lower Appellate is perverse and as such, it is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that after receiving the final order under Ex. B-2, the acknowledgement has been marked as Ex.B-3 signed by Malaya Chettiar. When the statutory charge is there, the alienation made by the assessee is not valid under law and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any relief. 19. In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed. The Judgment and the decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and the suit is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. II Madras High Court 1. The unsuccessful respondent in S.A. No. 21 of 1987 has filed the present Review Application to review the Judgment and decree of this Court dated 9.2.1998 passed in Second Appeal No. 21 of 1987. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit to set aside the attachment of the suit properties made by the second defendant and for permanent injunction bringing the properties for sale to realise the sales tax arrears and also penalty due by one Malayan Chettiar. The plaintiff purchased the properties for a valid consideration from one Dhanalakshmi Ammal under a registered sale deed dated 1.3.1973. She is in possession and enjoyment of the properties in her own right and paying the municipal tax. Malayan Chettiar was assessed to sales tax from 1957 to 1963 and in view of his tax arrears, statutory charge has been claimed by the authorities concerned. The plaintiff claims that she is the bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the charge. 3. The defendants contended that the properties were transferred only after the issue of provisional notice relating to the sales tax and as such, there is a statutory charge on these properties. The plaintiff claims that she is the bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the charge. 3. The defendants contended that the properties were transferred only after the issue of provisional notice relating to the sales tax and as such, there is a statutory charge on these properties. In short, the subsequent proceedings, if any, are only subject to the charge and, as such, the plaintiff will not get any absolute title. They are also entitled to recover the arrears of proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. 4. The trial Court dismissed the suit and aggrieved against this, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 18 of 1985 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem and the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved against this appeal, the defendants preferred the Second Appeal and after hearing the parties, this Court allowed the Second Appeal and dismissed the suit. Now, the plaintiff has come forward with this review application. 5. Heard the learned Counsel of both sides. 6. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff mainly contended that the Court has not considered the impact of Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as The Act) and according to proviso 1, bona fide transferee for adequate consideration without notice of the liability of the transferor in respect of the sales tax is protected and the charge cannot be enforced against such property in the hands of the transferee. The impact of Section 24A has not been considered in the decisions referred to in 1985 W.L.R. 240 and also the unreported decision in W.A. No. 981 of 1999 dated 29.8.1997. Further more, under Ex.A-32, the assessee, Malayan Chettiar, had acquired title for only the half of the properties and the other half belonged to his wife Dhanalakshmi Ammal and, as such, the charge, if any, will not be in respect of the entire property. The sales tax amount claimed is also excessive and this has not been properly explained and the plaintiff is not an assessee and she cannot question the same before the authorities. In short, according to the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, these are mistake apparent on the face of the record and, as such, the Judgment and decree passed by this Court dated 9.12.1998 have to be rviewed. 7. In short, according to the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, these are mistake apparent on the face of the record and, as such, the Judgment and decree passed by this Court dated 9.12.1998 have to be rviewed. 7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Civil Side) contended that the transfer has been effected only after receiving the notice by the assessee and there would be a statutory charge in respect of the properties. The purchaser of the property is also related to the assessee and hence, it cannot be said that she is a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice. The burden is only upon the plaintiff to prove that she is a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice. The sales tax although assessed has not been paid by the assessee, he had conveyed the property only to defeat the payment of the tax. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff further stated that Section 24A of the Act is not applicable to the case on hand since the amendment itself came into force from 1980 whereas the impugned transaction is earlier in point of time. 8. It is just and necessary to deal with the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff. Before considering the same, it is necessary to extract Section 24A of the Act for proper appreciation of the contentions of the parties. 8. It is just and necessary to deal with the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff. Before considering the same, it is necessary to extract Section 24A of the Act for proper appreciation of the contentions of the parties. “ Transfers to defraud revenue void : Where, during the pendency of any proceeding under this Act or after the 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 proceeding 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.” The language employed under section 24A of the Act clearly denotes that any transfer made to defraud the revenue, shall be void under law. However, proviso (i) says that such charge or transfer shall not be void if it is nade for adequate consideration and without notice of the pendency of such proceeding under this Act or other sum payable by the dealer. This proviso is now relied upon by the plaintift in order to show that she had purchased the property for a valid consideration and she was also not aware of the pendency of any proceedings initiated by the sales tax authorities. 9. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff also relied on the decision reported in Ahmedabad Municipality v. Haji Abdul , A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1201, wherein it was held that second half of Section 100 of the T.P. Act enacts the general prohibition that no charge shall be enforced against any property in the hands of a transferee for consideration without notice of the charge and that the exception to this general rule can be made only if expressly so provided by law. 10. 10. It is also made clear from Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act dealing with charge that nothing in that section applies to the charge of a trustee on the trust property for expenses properly incurred in the execution of the trust and, save as otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, no charge shall be enforced against any property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the saving provision of law must expressly provide for enforcement of a charge against the property in the hands of a transferee for value without notice of the charge and not merely create a charge. According to the learned Counsel, even if there is a statutory charge, the exception is that if the transferee is able to establish that he/she is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, then the charge cannot be enforced. 11. Reliance is also placed upon the decision in Deputy Commercial Tax Officer v. R.K. Steeis, 1999 (1) C.T.C. 63, that property of bona fide purchaser without notice of charge under section 24(4) of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act cannot be proceeded against to recover sales tax arrears of seller. It has also been held in N. Padma Coffee Works and others v. C.T.O., Rockfort Assmt. Circle, Trichy, Vol. 114 S.T.C. 494, as follows: “An honest and bona fide purchaser who had no knowledge about the encumbrance of the tax liability of the original owner is protected under proviso (i) to Section 24A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Under clause (i) of the proviso to section 24-A of the Act, not only adequate consideration but also the want of notice, are the two ingredients to safeguard the purchaser. A reading of section 3 of the T.P. Act, 1882 leads to the conclusion that, not only a willful abstention from an enquiry which a person ought to have made, but the gross negligence to make enquiry also would amount to notice of fact to him. When the prudence of a person requires him to make enquiry, but due to his own negligence he failed to make enquiry, he falls in the category of a person, with notice. When the prudence of a person requires him to make enquiry, but due to his own negligence he failed to make enquiry, he falls in the category of a person, with notice. A purchaser of the property when claims the transaction to be bona fide without notice, the yardstick to be applied for the “notice” is given in section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and only by the application of this provision, a purchaser who seeks protection under section 24-A of the Act, is to be identified, whether he is a purchaser for value without notice. The necessary of the purchase, the intention of the transfer, the relationship between the vendee and vendor are all vital factors to find out the reasonableness of the person who in purchasing the prop erty. Sometimes unexplained secrecy or haste in the transactions may also throw some light as to the bona fides or mala fieds. To decide whether a transaction was genuine or bona fide or mala fide, all facts relating to the conduct of the parties to the transaction have to be weighed as a whole.” The principles enunciated in these decisions can be considered for appreciating the contentions of the parties. 12. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid principles that even though there is a statutory charge, in view of section 24A, the bona fide transfree without notice will not be affected by the said charge. It has been suggested in the course of evidence that the plaintiff is related to the assessee Malayan Chettiar, but it has not been substantiated. Only if the parties are related, then under law, it can be presumed that the transferee also must have notice. In the present case, there is no material to infer that the transferee has notice of any such earlier proceedings. Similarly, at one point of time, the assessment of tax was only Rs. 2000/- and odd; but, suddenly in the subsequent notice, it has jumped into Rs. 64,000/-. The Department has failed to explain how this discrepancy has crept in. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff also placed another contention that Malayan Chettiar as well as wife had purchased the property under Ex. 2000/- and odd; but, suddenly in the subsequent notice, it has jumped into Rs. 64,000/-. The Department has failed to explain how this discrepancy has crept in. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff also placed another contention that Malayan Chettiar as well as wife had purchased the property under Ex. A-32 dated 15.4.1959 and, as such, even assuming that there was arrears of sales tax, the charge will be only in respect of the half share belonging to the said Malayan Chettiar and it cannot be extended to the other half share of his wife. Under Ex. A-33, the property has been conveyed in favour of a third party by Malayan Chettiar as well as his wife. The plaintiff had purchased the property from one Chinnammal @ Dhanalakshmi Ammal on 1.7.1973. It is therefore evidently clear that Malayan Chettiar was the owner of only one half of the property and as such, statutory charge if any would be only in respect of the half share and it cannot be extended to the other half share of his wife. In my view, this is an error apparent on the face of the record and only to the limited extent, the Judgment and decree already passed by this Court can be reviewed and the plaintiff can partly succeed in respect of half share in the property. So far as the other half share belonging to Malayan Chettiar, in view of the charge and for the reasons stated earlier, there is no reason to review the order. 13. For the reasons stated above, the Second Appeal is allowed in part and the Judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are modified and the suit is decreed only in respect of half share in the property and in respect of the other share, the suit is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Review Application orderd accordingly. III Madras High Court 1. Heard learned Counsel of both sides. 2. The respondent in S.A. No. 21 of 1987 has filed this review application. 3. There will be no order as to costs. Review Application orderd accordingly. III Madras High Court 1. Heard learned Counsel of both sides. 2. The respondent in S.A. No. 21 of 1987 has filed this review application. 3. This Court passed an order on 18.12.2000 and according to paragraph 12 of the order, in view of Section 24-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a bona fide transferee without notice and she will not be affected by the said charge. However, in paragraph 13 of the order, it was observed that the Second Appeal is allowed in part and the Judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are modified and the suit is decreed only in respect of half share in the property and in respect of the other share, the suit is dismissed. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in the review application and the respondent in the Second Appeal contended that this Court has not considered the impact of Section 24-A of the Act, which provides in Proviso I that bona fide transferee for adequate consideration without notice of the liability of the transferor in respect of the sales tax is protected and the charge cannot be enforced against such property in the hands of the transferee. The petitioner was found to be a bona fide transferee for value without notice. But, it has no relevancy in view of Section 29-A of the Act. Under Ex. A-32, the assessee, Malayan Chettiar had acquired title of only the half of the properties and the other half belonged to his wife Dhanalakshmi Ammal. This Court also failed to appreciate that in view of the above, only half of the property could be subjected to and not in entirety. These are the mistakes apparent on the face of the record and therefore it requires review. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent/appellant contended that the assessment order has been passed long back and the property was conveyed only thereafter, and under the circumstance, the order already passed by this Court is proper and correct and no further review is necessary. 6. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent/appellant contended that the assessment order has been passed long back and the property was conveyed only thereafter, and under the circumstance, the order already passed by this Court is proper and correct and no further review is necessary. 6. It is necessary to state that in paragraph 12 of the order dated 18.12.2000, it is clearly stated that the petitioner/respondent in the appeal is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. 7. According to the First Proviso to Section 24-A of the Act, the charge or transfer will not be void if it is made for adequate consideration and without notice of the pendency of such proceeding under this Act or, as the case may be, without notice of such tax or other sum payable by the dealer. Admittedly, the dealer was one Malayan Chettiar and the petitioner is not related to him. It has also come out in evidence that the dealer as well as his wife had purchased the property and even assuming that there would be a charge in respect of half share of the dealer, in view of Proviso I to Section 24-A of the Act, the appellant in the appeal cannot succeed, that the obvious reason is that this Court already came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a bona fide transferee and she was not related either to the dealer or his wife and in view of Section 24-A of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the appeal and at the same time, the appellant cannot proceed against the suit properties. 8. In view of the finding in paragraph 12 of the order that the petitioner is the bona fide transferee for value without notice and she, being the third party, the assessment order will not affect her right and as such, the Department cannot proceed against those properties. 9. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the order passed by this Court dated 18.12.2000 is liable to be modified and the review petition is allowed and as a result of which, the Second Appeal stands dismissed and the Judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are confirmed.