Allowing the petition, that the petitioner being a bona fide purchaser for consideration after due diligence could not be made to suffer on account of the tax dues that ran in the name of the original owner. The sale deed was for a consideration and the index copy was also issued in connection with the transaction. The public notice for executing the sale deed was issued in vernacular newspaper on October 26, 2007 and thereafter, a search was carried out. The search report dated October 1, 2008 was also on record along with the title clearance certificate of the advocate. It was evident from the documents that the property in question was free from all encumbrances having clear title and was available for transaction. The documents produced along with the additional affidavit being the order under section 179(1) , the certificate under section 222 , the order of attachment and panchnama drawn were all against the defaulting assessee VCT, and the petitioner was not in the picture. The proviso to section 281 provided that such transfer or charge might not be declared void if such a transfer or charge was made for adequate consideration and without notice of pendency or completion of such proceeding or without the notice of any tax liability or other sum payable by the assessee. According to the procedure for recovery of tax, rule 16 of Schedule II to the Act provides for issuance of notice for recovery of arrears by the Tax Recovery Officer upon the defaulter requiring the defaulter to pay the amount specified in the certificate within fifteen days from the date of the service of the notice and intimating that in default, steps would be taken to realize the amount. Rule 16 of Schedule II to the Act provides for private alienation to be considered void in certain cases and requires service of notice on the defaulter under rule 2. In the affidavit as well as the additional affidavit the Department had not brought on record service of notice under rule 2 of Schedule II. Moreover, it was evident from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Sub-Registrar that for the first time the order of attachment was given effect to by him only on June 26, 2015, when the charge was registered which was six and a half years after the sale deed was registered in favour of the petitioner. The order of the Tax Recovery Officer declaring the transfer null and void and the subsequent communication for auction of the property were to be set aside. ( AY. 1998-99)