5. The legal issue, which is canvassed before us in this
appeal is as to whether the learned Single Judge was right in not
taking note of the fact that Section 24(2) of the TNGST Act, 1959
provides the charge and priority over the other claims against
the property of a registered dealer only if any tax or penalty is
to be recovered, that admittedly, the appellant herein – wife of
the registered dealer, is not a defaulter and that therefore, the
respondent has no jurisdiction to proceed against the appellant
merely on the ground that the appellant executed a security bond
dated 02.9.1992. It is further submitted that in the counter,
there was a specific admission that the security bond in Form
XIXB was filed towards security for registration purpose only
under the provisions of the TNGST Act, 1959, that the appellant
being a surety, the property, which is an individual property,
cannot be proceeded against and that deprivation of property is a
serious issue and though it may not be a Fundamental Right, it is
a human right and therefore, the respondent would not be
justified in proceeding against the appellant's individual
property.
