Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1415 (MAD)

Usha Sridharan v. Tax Recovery Officer- VII

2012-03-19

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Since, the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 3. It has been stated that the petitioners had purchased the lands in question and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands concerned, from the date of their purchase. They have been shown as the owners of the said lands in question, in all the relevant revenue records. 4. It had been further stated that the petitioners had entered into an agreement with the second respondent, for the construction of the houses in the lands purchased by them. They had also paid the necessary advance. As per the terms of the agreements, the second respondent ought to have constructed and handed over the buildings, within a period of one year from the dates mentioned in the agreements, or within a period of fifteen months from such dates. However, the second respondent had abandoned the construction activities, during the year 1998-1999, contrary to the terms of the agreements. The Directors of the second respondent could not be found, as they had defaulted in their payments to the various third parties and therefore, arrest warrants were pending against them. Since, the second respondent had abandoned the construction activities, the petitioners had taken possession of their lands and they have been in enjoyment of the same, till date. While so, the first respondent had attached the properties belonging to the petitioners, for the alleged tax dues payable by the second respondent. No show cause notices had been issued to the petitioners, by the first respondent, before the attachment of the properties had been made. There is no default in the payment of the taxes by the petitioners. Therefore, the attachment of their properties, by the first respondent, is arbitrary and illegal. 5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petitions, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners had submitted that the attachment orders, issued by the first respondent, are arbitrary and illegal and therefore, they are liable to be raised. Even otherwise, the attachment orders are not perpetual in nature, as they shall remain valid only till the end of financial years concerned, as per the relevant rules. Even otherwise, the attachment orders are not perpetual in nature, as they shall remain valid only till the end of financial years concerned, as per the relevant rules. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be allowed to continue. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners had placed before this Court the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. NOORUDIN Vs.TAX RECOVERY OFFICER (2001) 251 ITR 0357. 2. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER Vs.GANGADHAR VISWANATH RANADE (DECD.) (1998) 234 ITR 0188. 3. F.J.IRANI Vs.HAJEE SIR ISMAIL WAKF ESTATE ( 2010 (3) CTC 692 ). 7. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents had not been in a position to show that the impugned attachment orders passed by the first respondent had been extended beyond the original period of attachment, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the rules framed thereunder. 8. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the original attachment of the properties, said to be belonging to the petitioners, by the impugned orders passed by the first respondent, stand raised, automatically, as they have not been shown that such attachments had been renewed, by the first respondent, by way of subsequent orders. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012, M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012, M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 are closed.