Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. Respondent No. 3- a Limited Company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 was the owner and possessor of Plot No. 136, Sector 24, Faridabad (Haryana) being industrial plot where steel plant was established. The registered office of the said Company was also on the same plot. The said Company closed its factory on 27.4.1985. Due to financial crunch, the said Company approached the BIFR for rehabilitation under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 as the Company had become economically and commercially unviable on long term basis. The recommendations of the BIFR were forwarded to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for formal winding up as the Company was having its registered office at Faridabad (Haryana) within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Even though, respondent No. 3-company made various efforts by filing appeals/writ petitions to avoid the winding up, but having failed in its attempt, the Punjab and Haryana High Court finally passed the winding up order on. 24.2.1995 in CP No. 31 of 1995 and the Official Liquidator attached to the Court was appointed as the liquidator for the respondent No. 3-Company. While the liquidation proceedings was pending, Haryana Financial Corporation, one of the secured creditors, filed CP No.72/1995 for permission to sell the land., building, fixtures, plant and machinery and other misc. items of respondent No. 1-Company. The High Court vide its order dated 21.7.1995 granted permission to the Haryana Financial Corporation to sell the assets of the Company in liquidation. The assets of respondent No. 3-Company were sold to the petitioner for a sale consideration of Rs. 4.10 crores which includes all the movable, immovable assets lying at Plot No. 136, Sector 24, Faridabad. Sale in favour of the petitioner was confirmed by the Company Court vide order dated 1 7.9.2004 and consequently, the Official Liquidator on receipt of the entire sale consideration handed over possession to the petitioner on 23.9.2004 as is evident from the Certificate issued by the Official Liquidator dated 11.10.2004 (Annexure P-2). Consequently, the Official liquidator vide its letter dated 11.10.2004 informed the Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad to enter the name of the petitioner-Company in its record for taxing purposes. Similar letter (Annexure P-4) was sent to the Administrator HUDA, Faridabad (Haryana). Consequently, the Official liquidator vide its letter dated 11.10.2004 informed the Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad to enter the name of the petitioner-Company in its record for taxing purposes. Similar letter (Annexure P-4) was sent to the Administrator HUDA, Faridabad (Haryana). It was specifically mentioned in the sale Certificate (Annexure P-2) that the sale in favour of the petitioner is free of any charges or lien. Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and the HUDA was also informed that the petitioner-Company be treated as a new entity for future without demanding previous dues upto 23.9.2004. HUDA issued No Due Certificate to the petitioner. However, respondent No. 1-Municipal Corporation, Faridabad did not issue any certificate. The petitioner made a representation dated 30.1.2006 requesting them to issue No Due Certificate with regard to House Tax, Fire Tax, Profession Tax and Water Tax etc. upto 23.9.2004. However, the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 18.4.2006 addressed in the name of respondent No. 3 through the petitioner-Company to deposit the Municipal dues upto 31.3.2006. It is alleged that the petitioner being in need of water supply for its business activity was constrained to deposit the demand vide demand draft dated 19.4.2006 under duress. After depositing the aforesaid amount, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of letter dated 18.4.2006 (Annexure P-7) and refund of Rs. 8,37,727/- paid by it on behalf of respondent No. 3 on account of house tax etc, upto 23.9.2004. The petitioner has placed on record copy of the receipt of payment of the aforesaid amount. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the issue involved in the present petition is no more res integra. Honble Apex Court in the case of M/s Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr., JT 1995 (2) SC 626 has held that the law as it stands is inadequate to enforce the liability of the previous contracting party against auction purchaser who is third party and is no where connected to the previous owner or the occupier. In the case of Al Company Industries Ltd. v. Official Liquidator and another, (2009) 148 Comp Cas 641 (SC), while considering the claim of the Municipal Corporation regarding the property tax relating to the period prior to confirmation of sale in favour of the auction purchaser, the Honble Supreme Court has held as under : "19........ In the case of Al Company Industries Ltd. v. Official Liquidator and another, (2009) 148 Comp Cas 641 (SC), while considering the claim of the Municipal Corporation regarding the property tax relating to the period prior to confirmation of sale in favour of the auction purchaser, the Honble Supreme Court has held as under : "19........ Municipal Corporation indisputably is not a preferential creditor. Companies Act in relation to winding up of proceeding is otherwise a special law. While distributing the assets between the creditors and unsecured creditors, the provisions of Sections 529 and 530 must be complied with. 20. All claims against the companies were required to be filed before the liquidator until the property was sold as provided for under Section 457 of the Companies Act. In terms of Section 456 thereof once an order for winding up is made the liquidator has to take into custody the properties, effects and actionable claims to which the company is or appears to be entitled. Section 528 provides that all debts payable on a contingency and all claims against the company, present or future are admissible to proof against the company. Section 529 provides for the same rule as in force for the time being under the law of insolvency with respect to the estates of persons adjudged insolvent, Section 530 provides for certain priorities to secured creditors and other unsecured creditors. Once the property is sold, the assets of the company are required to be distributed to the creditors in order of preference. As the respondent Municipality was not a secured creditor, the impugned Judgment cannot be sustained. 22. Dues of the Municipality would also not even otherwise come within the purview of the crown debt. Even a crown debt could be discharged only after the secured creditors stand discharged...." 4. In the present case, admittedly, the property was purchased by the petitioner through Court auction duly confirmed by the Company Court. The property was sold without any encumbrance or charge over it. The sale certificate issued by the Official Liquidator in favour of the petitioner, specifically contains stipulation that the property was free of any charge or lien. The letters issued by the Official Liquidator to the Municipal Corporation as also the HUDA also indicate that the petitioner is not liable to pay any past arrears upto the date of sale i.e. 23.9.2004. The letters issued by the Official Liquidator to the Municipal Corporation as also the HUDA also indicate that the petitioner is not liable to pay any past arrears upto the date of sale i.e. 23.9.2004. It is also admitted position that the taxes payable to the Municipal Corporation by the erstwhile owner do not fall in the category of secured debts or like the claims of workmen having preference under Section 529-A of the Companies Act, nor the claim of taxes create any charge over the property. It was liability of the erstwhile owner. The respondent-Municipal Corporation also did not lodge its claim before the Official liquidator when the claims were invited nor the Municipal Corporation notified its claim before the sale of the property or even to the petitioner, the purchaser before the confirmation of the sale. The petitioner is thus not liable to pay the liability of respondent No. 3 upto the date of sale in favour of the petitioner referred to here-in-above. 5. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the letter dated 18.4.2006 (Annexure P-7) issued by respondent No. 1 raising a demand of Rs. 8,37,727/- from the petitioner towards House tax etc. upto 23.9.2004 is hereby quashed. It is declared that the petitioner was/is not liable to pay any taxes on account of House Tax, Fire Tax, Profession Tax and Water Tax etc. to respondent No. 1-Corporation upto 23.9.2004. Respondent No. 1-Corporation has already recovered an amount of Rs. 8.37,727/- from the petitioner. Since this liability was not payable by the petitioner, it is ordered that instead of refunding the amount. respondent No. 1-Corporation shall adjust the same against arrears, if any, after the date of sale and the future taxes payable by the petitioner from time to time. Petition allowed.