R. Sudhakar, J.@mdashThis Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent culminating
in the notice of attachment dated 19.11.2012 issued from File C. No. IV/16/48/2009 ST GR III and quash the same. Mr. Ravi
Anandhapadmanabhan, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.
2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the notice of attachment of immovable property, namely ""CEEBROS SHYAMALA"" Block-IV flat
No. 7D, 7th Floor, Door No. 136, Arcot Road, Saligraman, Chennai - 600093..."" issued by the respondent Service Tax Department alleging
default in payment of service tax by Shri Goolabjith alias Prabhu Nepaul, Prop, of M/s. Jakaarb Telefilms No. 6, 2nd Floor, 4th Cross Street,
Sterling Road, Chennai-600 034 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.
3. 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 the said
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, namely, Mr. Rajagopalan
Kuppuswamy and Mrs. Hema Balasubramanian by document No. 4071/12 dated 20.7.2012.
4. In view of the notice of attachment of the immovable property, present writ petition has been filed stating that the provisions of the Customs Act
has not been followed.
5. On fact, the petitioner is not the owner of the properly in question. 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. 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 as above. If any
action is proposed to be taken as against the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner can defend such action as per law. At this stage, no relief as sought
for can be granted. The petitioner, however, is directed to give a reply to the respondent authority explaining the facts as above so as to enable the
department to take appropriate action as per law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The writ
petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.