Skip to main content

No Charge on the Property for Alleged Dues of the Erstwhile Owners

In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8096 of 2019, CHOKSHI TEXLEN PVT. LTD vs STATE OF GUJARAT, the petitioner had purchased a property by way of a registered sale deed and also obtained a title clearance certificate, which revealed that there was no encumbrance on the subject property. Thereafter, the petitioners came to know that by an order dated 9.9.2011, the respondent authorities had created a charge and attached the subject property for alleged dues of the erstwhile owner of the property. Prior to the purchase of the property by the petitioners, no charge had been registered by the respondents in respect of the subject property and, the attachment came to be made subsequent to the purchase of the subject property.

The petitioner argued before the Court that since the property had already been purchased by the petitioners, no charge could be entered on the property for alleged dues of the erstwhile owners. The petitioner further pointed that the dues of the erstwhile owners have arisen after the subject property was purchased by the petitioners and hence, it is not permissible for the respondents to attach the subject property and create any charge over it. 

Meanwhile, the Revenue argued that the erstwhile owner sold its property with a view to defraud the Government revenue. Hence, the transaction between erstwhile owner and the petitioners is void as the transaction is with a view to defraud the Government exchequer, under Section 47 of the GVAT Act.

he court however while analysis the case noted that “the petitioners are not liable to pay any tax, interest or penalty to the Government and therefore, would not fall within the ambit of the expression “any other person” as contemplated in section 48 of the GVAT Act”. 

The Gujarat High Court observing that the subject property was transferred in favour of the petitioner, prior to the order of attachment and creation of a charge thereon concluded that as on the date when the subject property came to be attached and a charge came to be created thereon, it did not belong to the erstwhile owner. 

The court hence concluded that the “provisions of section 48 of the GVAT Act, therefore, would clearly not be attracted in the facts of the present case” The court also pointed out that, “if it is the case of the department that the transfer in favour of the petitioner is void on the ground that Varun Filaments Private Limited has transferred the same to the petitioner with the intention of defrauding the Government revenue, then the respondents are required to approach the civil court for a declaration that the transfer is void”. 

The court from the analysis hence concluded that the only recourse available to the VAT authority under section 47 of the Act is to approach the civil court to annul the transfer on the ground that it was made with an intention to defraud the Government.

Article referred: https://www.taxscan.in/no-charge-property-alleged-dues-erstwhile-owners-gujarat-high-court/41109/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more