ORDER ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI :- The petitioner has raised the challenge to the notice of attachment of immovable property in form No. 48, dated October 15, 2008 (annexure F) and the notice, dated October 15, 2008 (annexure H) directing the petitioner to vacate the said property. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner purchased the property bearing plot No. 5C, Peenya I Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore from respondent No. 2 by a registered sale deed, dated July 12, 2004. The khatha is also transferred to the petitioner's name. The petitioner has been paying the property tax to the corporation. When thus stood the things, the petitioner received the notice in form No. 41, dated June 6, 2008 addressed to respondent No. 2. It states that respondent No. 2 is liable to pay the tax of Rs. 1,25,20,725 (rupees one crore twenty five lakhs twenty thousand seven hundred and twenty five only). The petitioner submitted a reply, dated June 20, 2008 informing that it has purchased the property in question. Without considering the petitioner's reply, respondent No. 1 pasted a notice of attachment in form No. 48 on the said property. It is also addressed to respondent No. 2 only. Thereafter, the officials of the Commercial Tax Department drew the spot-mahazar and issued the notice to the petitioner to vacate and hand over the possession of the said property to respondent No. 1 within 15 days. Aggrieved by these notices, this petition is instituted. Sri K. P. Kumar, the learned senior counsel for M/s. King and Partridge for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser having paid the lawful sale consideration. The petitioner has made all the due enquiries. It has even issued a public notice in a leading daily, namely, The Times of India issue, dated May 23, 2004 calling upon the public to file their claims/objections, if any, in respect of the property in question. He submits that neither respondent No. 1 nor anybody else has filed the objections or claims to the petitioner's proposed purchase of properties in question. He submits that no charge whatsoever was registered by respondent No. 1 with the sub-registrar in respect of the properties in question. He submits that neither respondent No. 1 nor anybody else has filed the objections or claims to the petitioner's proposed purchase of properties in question. He submits that no charge whatsoever was registered by respondent No. 1 with the sub-registrar in respect of the properties in question. The learned senior counsel has also relied upon the honourable apex court's judgment in the case of State of Karnataka v. Shreyas Papers P. Ltd. reported in [2006] 144 STC 331 (SC), wherein it is held that the charge created for arrears of sales tax on the property is not available against the transferee of the assets without notice. Sri K. M. Shivayogiswamy, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 1, submits that respondent No. 2 has sold the property to the petitioner only to frustrate the endeavours of the Commercial Tax Department to recover the arrears of tax, etc., from respondent No. 2. He submits that when the petitioner claims to be a big organization, it ought to have made due enquiry with the Commercial Tax Department as to whether any charge is created by respondent No. 1 by the very operation of law as contained in section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The Government Pleader further submits that when the petitioner could get the no-dues certificate from the Canara Bank and KSFC, nothing prevented it from asking for no-dues certificate from the Commercial Tax Departmental also. Sri Ajit Kalyan, the learned counsel for Sri H. S. Dwarakanath for respondent No. 2 submits that respondent No. 2 has closed down its business way back in 1997 itself. In the course of his rejoinder, Sri K. P. Kumar brings to my notice the recitals contained in "(e)" of the sale deed, which reads as follows : "(e) the vendor - company has a clear and marketable title to the schedule property, free from all encumbrance, lien, attachments, charges or claims of any whatsoever and there are no impediments whatsoever, at law or otherwise, to the transfer of the schedule property to the purchaser." This court finds the impugned notice unsupportable and unsustainable for more than one reason. The petitioner has filed its reply, dated June 20, 2008 on receiving the first respondent's notice, dated June 6, 2008. However, the reply has remained unconsidered. The petitioner has filed its reply, dated June 20, 2008 on receiving the first respondent's notice, dated June 6, 2008. However, the reply has remained unconsidered. In the subsequent communication, issued by respondent No. 1, there is not even a cursory reference to the reply, much less the consideration of the reply. On the short ground of the non-consideration of the petitioner's reply, the impugned notice of attachment, dated October 15, 2008 (annexure H) is liable to be quashed. No response whatsoever is forthcoming from respondent No. 1 as to why the claims/objections were not filed to the public notice issued in the Times of India on behalf of the petitioner to its proposed purchase of the properties. Similarly, no explanation whatsoever is found in the statement of objections, as to why respondent No. 1 took six long years to issue the notice of attachment of immovable property. It is not in dispute that the proceedings regarding the second respondent's liability to pay tax attained the finality in 2002. For six long years respondent No. 1 did nothing to issue the notice of attachment. Suddenly after six long years when the third party interests have come in, the notice of attachment is issued. Yet another aspect which cannot be ignored is that no steps whatsoever are taken to have the charge on the property created in respect of the property. There is no doubt that the charge is created by the operation of law. But, if the third parties are to be guarded against dealing with such properties, it is certainly desirable for the tax authorities to have the charge entered in the sub-registrar's records. For all the aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned notice of attachment, dated October 15, 2008 (annexure F) and the notice, dated October 15, 2008 (annexure H). Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the petitioner's reply, dated June 20, 2008 (annexure E) in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon. The first respondent's reconsideration has to be meaningful and in the light of the reasons given herein for quashing the impugned notice. Needless to observe that the quashing of the impugned notice would not come in the way of respondent No. 1 proceeding against respondent No. 2 and its properties to recover the tax dues, etc. This petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.