Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2019 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 306 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of attachment order - stay application pending before the Tribunal - stay granted against recovery of the amount in connection with the demand raised - Held that:- Nothing has been pointed out to this court to establish that the stay application was not decided expeditiously by the Tribunal on account of any default on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has already deposited the tax component of the demand. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances having been made out, there was no warrant on the part of the respondents to initiate coercive recovery against the petitioner by attaching his immoveable properties - the decision in the case of Automark Industries (I) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [2015 (11) TMI 1016 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, where it was held that the respondents should stay their hands till the stay application is decided, unless the stay application is not decided on account of default on the part of the petitioner or it is found that the petitioner is unnecessarily delaying the hearing of the stay application. Whether after the Tribunal had granted stay against recovery of the amount in connection with the demand raised, whether it is permissible for the respondents to continue with the attachment made vide the impugned order dated 03.10.2013? - Held that:- Since the Tribunal has only granted stay against recovery, the respondents are not required to lift the attachment on the property in question. In this regard, a perusal of the provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 shows that the powers exercised by the respondents while attaching the property of the petitioner are relatable to section 46 thereof, which makes provision for special powers of tax authorities for recovery of tax as arrears of land revenue. Since the powers exercised by the respondents are under section 155 of the Code, it evident that the same is in the nature of recovery proceedings. Therefore, once the Tribunal had stayed the recovery by virtue of its order dated 24.01.2014, the respondents were bound to respect such orders and lift the attachment on the properties of the petitioner made vide the impugned order. Since, the attachment is part of recovery proceedings, the contention that there is no recovery and/or attachment, cannot be countenanced. The respondents are directed to forthwith lift the attachment on the property in question of the petitioner and any proceedings taken subsequent thereto, including any entry having been made in the revenue record in relation to such attachment - Petition allowed.
|