HIGH COURT OF MADRAS: PROPERTY ATTACHMENT NOTICE CANNOT BE CHALLENGED BY A PERSON WHO IS NOT THE OWNER OF PROPERTY

In its judgment dated 5^th December, 2012 HIGH COURT OF MADRAS in the case of Mrs. Kutty Padmini vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai held that the petitioner cannot challenge the notice of attachment of immovable property as she is not the owner of the property as per her claim. 

Issue for Consideration

The issue arises in the present case is that whether a notice can be challenged by a person even if he is not the owner of property.

Facts of the Case

·  The writ petition has been filed challenging the notice of attachment of immovable property, issued by the respondent Service Tax Department alleging default in payment of service tax by Shri Goolabjith alias Prabhu Nepaul and a copy of the notice of attachment of immovable property, has been served on the petitioner Mrs. Kutty Padmini as mother of Ridhineka Goolabjith Nepaul.

·     The plea of the petitioner is that based on power of attorney dated 2.6.2011 and Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.7.2011 between the petitioner and her husband Ramaprabha Sathyanand Nepaul Goolabjith @ Prabu Nepaul and the settlement deed dated 3.1.2012 by Ramaprabha Sathyanand Nepaul Goolabjith @ Prabu Nepaul in favour of their minor daughter, the property stood transferred in the name of their minor daughter who in turn after attaining majority sold the same to the third parties.

·    The present owners of the property, are Mr. Rajagopalan Kuppuswamy and Mrs. Hema Balasubramanian by document No. 4071 /12 dated 20.7.2012

·     In fact, the petitioner is not the owner of the property in question. 

Judgment

ü  It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the notice of attachment of immovable property as she is not the owner of the property as per her claim. 

ü  If the notice has been wrongly issued to the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to give a representation to the respondent authority setting out the details of the transaction that has taken place.

ü  If any action is proposed to be taken as against the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner can defend such action as per law.

ü  The petitioner, however, is directed to give a reply to the respondent authority explaining the facts, so as to enable the department to take appropriate action as per law.

ü  It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Regards

CA. Mona Singhal

Partner

Arpit Gupta & Associates

Chartered Accountants

701, Nirmal Tower,

26, Barakhamba Road,

Connaught Place, Delhi-110001

Mobile:- +91-9873082769 

Website: www.caaga.co.in