ORDER T. RAJA :- The present writ petition came to be filed challenging the notice issued by the first respondent/Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Srivilliputhur in his Roc. A3/2792/2002 dated March 24, 2008 seeking issuance of a writ of prohibition to prohibit the first respondent from proceeding further in pursuance of the impugned notice. The writ petitioner purchased a property situated at door No. 63, 64 and 65, new No. 2, Koonnankulam South Last Street, Srivilliputhur measuring 1935.75 sq. ft. from the second respondent, M/s. Maya Exports, Srivilliputhur. After the said purchase, the same was also registered under the office of the sub-registrar, Srivilliputhur through a sale deed dated October 24, 2005. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that after the purchase of the property from the second respondent by a registered sale deed on October 24, 2005, that too, after getting encumbrance certificate from the sub-registrar, Srivilliputhur, the petitioner becomes a bona fide purchaser. Therefore, he cannot be held liable for any attachment for sales tax arrears payable by the second respondent. In his further submission, it is contended that the impugned notice issued by the first respondent, after a period of two years from the date of purchase of the property inviting objection for the proposed auction under the Revenue Recovery Act for arrears of sales tax payable by the second respondent is without jurisdiction. Further, it is stated that the first respondent has not issued any notices under the Revenue Recovery Act in forms 4, 5, 7, 7A to the second respondent before issuing the impugned notice to the petitioner. Further, the first respondent has not furnished the details of the arrears of sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax Act year-wise. Further, when the first respondent has not attached the property of the second respondent prior to the sales transaction, it is not open to the first respondent to issue the present impugned notice, that too, after two years from the date of purchase by the petitioner, who is a bona fide purchaser. On that basis, he prayed for setting aside the impugned notice issued by the first respondent. On the other hand, the first respondent by filing a detailed counter opposed the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition and placed his submissions for dismissal of the writ petition. On that basis, he prayed for setting aside the impugned notice issued by the first respondent. On the other hand, the first respondent by filing a detailed counter opposed the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition and placed his submissions for dismissal of the writ petition. According to the first respondent, the second respondent, M/s. Maya Exports, being manufacturers of cotton yarn, were assessee in the assessment circle of the DCTO, Srivilliputhur. At the time of the commencement of the business, the second respondent has availed of deferral of sales tax under the interest-free sales tax loan scheme during the period from 1996-97 to 2001-02. As per the eligibility certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (TIIC) dated December 6, 1996, the total amount of interest-free sales tax loan eligible for deferral was Rs. 57.18 lakhs. The repayment schedule started from December 1, 2005 to November 30, 2014. The second respondent after filing of the IFST loan under the said scheme amounting to Rs. 15.60 lakhs during the period from December 1, 1996 to March 31, 2003, which is payable from December 1, 2005 onwards. The second respondent failed to repay the loan as per the schedule. Though the abovesaid amount was collected by the second respondent from their consumers on their sales, the same was kept by the second respondent for nine years without any interest on condition to repay the dues from December 1, 2005 onwards. Though the partners of the second respondent - firm have executed agreement on March 14, 1997 with the Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Sivakasi, in regard to repayment of the loan, they have not repaid the arrears of the loan. Subsequently, certain immovable properties belong to the partners of the firm were attached by issue of form 4 notice on August 3, 2004. Thereafter, even gazette publication has been made in the Virudhunagar District Gazette No. 2 dated February 26, 2007. When the first respondent was taking action pursuant to the above proceedings to attach the immovable property in dispute towards arrears due from the arrears payable by the second respondent, the second respondent surreptitiously executed a sale deed to the petitioner in respect of the immovable property in dispute on September 7, 2007. When the first respondent was taking action pursuant to the above proceedings to attach the immovable property in dispute towards arrears due from the arrears payable by the second respondent, the second respondent surreptitiously executed a sale deed to the petitioner in respect of the immovable property in dispute on September 7, 2007. Since the second respondent in collusion with the petitioner had executed the sale deed on knowing pretty well, when the property is going to be attached by the first respondent, the act of the second respondent is totally illegal and also reflecting the bad intention to defraud the Government dues. When these facts were properly brought by the first respondent by filing a detailed counter in the year 2008, though two years have gone by, the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to deny the payment of dues by the second respondent and more so, the petitioner has not even brought to the notice of the court by denying the allegation of collusion taking place with the petitioner and the second respondent in executing the sale deed dated September 7, 2007. In fact, the property against which the present impugned notice is issued belongs to all the partners of the second respondent - firm and all the partners have jointly executed a sale deed to the petitioner on September 7, 2007. Admittedly, when the partners have executed the sale deed dated September 7, 2007, all the partners of the second respondent - company were well aware of the fact that their repayment schedule of the second respondent - company have already started from December 1, 2005 onwards but instead of clearing arrears, the partners of the second respondent - company chose to sell the property colluding with the petitioner with an intention to defraud the Government dues, that too, after collecting taxes from the consumers and keeping them for about nine years on interest-free. Therefore, charge on the property sold by the second respondent was rightly attached on October 29, 2007 by issuing form 4 notice, which has been rightly served on A. Emaraj, one of the partners on November 4, 2007. Subsequently, sale notices have been issued under forms 5, 7 and 7A fixing the sale date as June 27, 2008. Therefore, charge on the property sold by the second respondent was rightly attached on October 29, 2007 by issuing form 4 notice, which has been rightly served on A. Emaraj, one of the partners on November 4, 2007. Subsequently, sale notices have been issued under forms 5, 7 and 7A fixing the sale date as June 27, 2008. A joint reading of section 24(1) and 24(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 with clause 3 of the agreement, reveals that there is an automatic charge over the property towards the arrears payable by the second respondent - company. The second respondent was well aware of the fact that the arrears related to the period from 1996-97 to 2002-03 have accrued as early as on January 2, 1998 onwards. Therefore, when they were selling the property by executing a sale deed on September 7, 2007 to the petitioner, they were all well aware of the dues payable by them. But, without clearing the dues, the second respondent's company in collusion with the petitioner sold out the property to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, this court cannot treat the petitioner as a bona fide purchaser as he has failed to ascertain the details of arrears payable by the second respondent to the first respondent before execution of the sale deed in his favour. In similar circumstances, in R. Balasubramanian v. Additional Deputy Commercial Tax Officer III, Tuticorin, in W.A. (MD) No. 130 of 2005 dated August 22, 2005, a Division Bench of this court has held that the claim of the appellant that he is a bona fide purchaser on which automatic charge is created cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India as the proper remedy for the said person is only to approach the civil court to establish his right. In view of the above judgment of this court, I do not find any merits in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. After pronouncing the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner wants to work out his remedy before the civil court. In view of the above judgment of this court, I do not find any merits in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. After pronouncing the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner wants to work out his remedy before the civil court. It is needless to mention that the petitioner claims to be a bona fide purchaser and therefore, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy as against the second respondent by approaching the civil court in accordance with law.