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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more