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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more