K.revathi v. The Tax Recovery Officer
High Court
04 Aug 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
K.revathi v. The Tax Recovery Officer
Date of order
04 Aug 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In K.revathi v. The Tax Recovery Officer, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.
Issue: Further,the petitioner wanted a clarification as to whether theproperty, she had purchased from Kumudha Factory Private Limitedin the year 1993 was also subject matter of the said attachment.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 4.8.2021.
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYANW.P.No.8828 of 2021
K.Revathi
...Petitioner
vs.
1. The Tax Recovery Officer-4, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 327, 3rd Floor, Wanaparthy Block, Aayakar Bhavan, 121, M.G.Road, Chennai 600 034.
2. The Sub Registrar, Panruti.
3. M/s.Kumudha Factories Private Limited, Door No.153, Flat No.2, Surendra Court, Bheemanan Mudali Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.
(R3 impleaded vide order dated 28.6.2021made in WMP.13590/2021)...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing thefirst respondent to instruct the second respondent that there isno attachment of the petitioner's property of an area of 5625sqft. in S.No.4/1, T.S.No.8 in Panruti and consequently directthe second respondent to withdraw the embargo on the petitionerregistering any document with respect to her property, as perher representations dated 11.11.2020 and 21.11.2020.
For Petitioner : Ms.R.MeenalFor R1: Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Standing CounselFor R2: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Government Advocate
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a writ ofmandamus seeking for a direction against the first respondent,the Tax Recovery Officer-4, Office of the Principal Commissionerof Income Tax, Chennai to instruct the second respondent, SubRegistrar, Panruti that there is no attachment of the propertyof the petitioner measuring an extent of 5625 sqft in S.No.4/1,T.S.No.8 in Panruti and consequently direct the secondrespondent to register the document in accordance with herrepresentations dated 11.11.2020 and 21.11.2020.
2. The petitioner appears to have purchased the saidproperty from Kumudha Factory Private Limited and the sale deedhad been executed by the Authorised Signatory, K.S.MeenakshiAmmal, a Director of the said Company and the said sale deed wasregistered as Document No.379/1993 by the Sub Registrar, Panrutiand she had been put in possession. From the date shepurchased, she claims to be in undisturbed possession and shealso obtained patta.
3. It is stated that unfortunately, the properties ofKumudha Factory Private Limited appear to have been been coveredby the notice of the Income Tax Authorities necessitatingattachment of the same.
4. I am not going into a discussion of the facts. Further,the petitioner wanted a clarification as to whether theproperty, she had purchased from Kumudha Factory Private Limitedin the year 1993 was also subject matter of the said attachment.
5. The petitioner should be thankful to the learned counselfor the first respondent Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, who hadproduced a letter dated 19.7.2021 addressed on behalf of thefirst respondent to the second respondent, wherein it had beenclearly stated that the records reveal that no proceedingsinitiated by the first respondent are pending against thepetitioner herein and a direction was given to the secondrespondent to delete any entries with regard to attachment ofproperty of an extent of 5625 sqft. in S.No.4/1 T.S.No.8 whichhad been purchased by the petitioner in Document No.379/1993.
6. The above direction issued by the first respondent tothe second respondent would probably satisfy the writ petitioner
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
and the relief sought for in this writ petition. The secondrespondent is bound by the direction issued by the firstrespondent. No further orders will be required. The writpetition is disposed of on the above terms.
Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-V)// True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
6. The above direction issued by the first respondent tothe second respondent would probably satisfy the writ petitioner
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
and the relief sought for in this writ petition. The secondrespondent is bound by the direction issued by the firstrespondent. No further orders will be required. The writpetition is disposed of on the above terms.
Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-V)// True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ssk. To1. The Tax Recovery Officer-4, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 327, 3rd Floor, Wanaparthy Block, Aayakar Bhavan, 121, M.G.Road, Chennai 600 034. 2. The Sub Registrar, Panruti. +1cc to Mr.R.Meenal , Advocate, S.R.No.38170+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.38854
W.P.No.8828 of 2021
PCH(CO)SU(27/08/2021)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.