Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2011 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (12) TMI 494 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTOrder passed u/s 65 the Gujarat Sales Tax Act – Attachment of property - Sales tax benefit in form of deferment - petitioner being the bona fide purchaser - Held that:- Purchase of the property was by Smt. Meena Parikh, who had purchased it from the State Bank of India, which had sold it after invoking notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the total area of the land is 7,000 sq. meters and the area of the land purchased by the present petitioner was 4,812 sq. meters on August 31, 2007 by an entry No. 4497 effected in the Revenue record - prior to the purchase, there was no objection raised against that and as rightly pointed that sales tax dues cannot claim priority over the secured dues of the bank - The bank after exercising its powers had sold the same by way of an auction. In Tax Recovery Officer v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India [2012 (8) TMI 541 - Gujarat High Court] it has been held that unsecured Crown debt has no priority over secured debt of a secured creditor - there is nothing on record to suggest that under the Central Excise Act or the Rules framed thereunder priority of charge over the secured debt has been created – no such law has been brought on record to suggest that the Central Government has any first charge or priority over the secured or unsecured debt - dues of the Sales Tax Department cannot have primacy over the secured debt of banks – the petitioner was fully secured by the Kabulatnama given in his favour by both Smt. Meena Parikh and the directors of the erstwhile company. The purchaser has purchased the property for value without notice from the auction held by secured creditor-financial institution - It cannot be affected by any subsequent attachment nor by way of any earlier deed on the part of the erstwhile owners and, therefore, on both these counts also the title of the present petitioner cannot be affected - therefore, any notice issued in relation to the land purchased by the present petitioner by way of a registered sale deed on and by an entry mutated cannot be effected and the same requires to be protected by way of an order in this petition - in the wake of the order dated August 4, 2009, in appeal under section 65 of the Sales Tax Act, though has put an end to the liability of the erstwhile owner, even if there are any dues remaining to be recovered from the owner from the remaining portion of the land, out of the total admeasuring 4812 sq. meters executed in favour of the present petitioner by way of a registered sale dated August 31, 2007 by an entry No. 5417, the Sales Tax Department can initiate actions against erstwhile owners or the subsequent transfer Shri Meena Parikh but that in any manner cannot affect the title of the present petitioner – thus, the first order of attachment dated July 18, 2003 and the second order of attachment dated August 23, 2008 recorded vide entry No. 2155 are quashed - the petitioner being the bona fide purchaser value without notice Sales Tax Department shall not proceed with the sale of the property – Decided in favour of petitioner.
|