Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Supreme Court proceeded to say that the Municipal Corporation Act which created a charge does not provide that the charge is enforceable against the property in the hands of a transferee for consideration without notice of the charge. The Supreme Court, however, discussed the issue of constructive notice and came to the conclusion that the purchaser in that case could not be fixed with any constructive notice of the arrears of municipal tax. It was further pointed out that a pertinent and reasonable man was bound to make enquiries regarding arrears of municipal tax and that in any event, the question of constructive knowledge or notice has got to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. In view of the finding that the purchaser could not be fixed with any constructive notice, the Supreme Court upheld the view of the Division Bench that the purchaser cannot be made liable for the municipal taxes. In our considered view, the judgment of the Supreme court is comprehensive in all respects and the same should have been taken note of by this Court, while dealing with cases of transferee for value without constructive notice of the sales tax arrears. We are compelled to make the above observation because there is a subsequent Division Bench judgment of this Court in Coramandel Indag Products India Ltd. v. commercial Tax Officer, 1993 (3) MTCR 8, dated October 29, 1992. Before the division Bench of this Court, the very same point was agitated and the judgment of the Supreme Court above referred to was also cited. All the same, the Division Bench has again chosen to follow the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dy. Commercial Tax Officer v. Asha Kumari, 1985 (14) STL (Mad.) 164. The latter Division Bench Judgment was rendered on October 29, 1992 in W.A.No.1019 of 1989 and the facts are almost identical to the facts of the present case. In that case, the assessee-company had tax arrears. They sold a property belonging to them on April 14, 1980, when the statutory charge had been fastened on them. When the Revenue proceeded against the transferee and a Form No.7 notice was issued the transferee filed a writ petition against the recovery proceedings. The transferee contended that they are the bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the charge. When the decision of the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Haji Abdul Gafur Haji Hussenbhai, was brought to the notice of the Division Bench, they purported to distinguish the same by the following observation: