Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

Latest Case Laws

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (3) TMI 586

e properties, no charge of the department was reflected in the revenue records. There is nothing on record to suggest that to defeat the interest of the revenue, erstwhile owners had transferred the properties to the petitioner who happen to be close relatives or that the transfer was without full consideration. The element of transfer being fraudulent is therefore, not established. Secondly, even in terms of section 47, the case of the department is that such transfer was void. The transfer took place in the year 2007. No action was taken by the department for nearly 10 years. It was only when the petitioner asked for benefit of amnesty scheme the said view was taken. Even on ground of delay, laches and inaction, the department cannot be a .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

Sheth, Advocate For The Respondent : Ms Shruti Pathak, AGP And Mr Pranav G Desai, Advocate ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 21.3.2017 as at AnnexureA to the petition by which the petitioner's application for benefit of an amnesty scheme framed by the Government came to be rejected. 2. Facts are as under. Petitioner no.1 is a public limited company. Petitioner no.2 is the Managing Director of the company. The company purchased certain immovable properties in November 2007 through registered sale deeds in the nature of plot of land with factory situated in survey no.7 of village Vadadla, District Bharuch from one M/s. Sonic Watches Ltd and another situated at survey n .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

e principal tax dues, interest and penalty would be waived. 5. The petitioner applied for the benefit of amnesty scheme on 20.2.2017 in the prescribed proforma. Along with the prescribed format, the petitioner attached a separate letter to the Commissioner of Value Added Tax in which he stated that as per his calculation, his outstanding tax comes to ₹ 76,16,708/. The company has closed down. The petitioner does not have money to pay such sum. However, there is a buyer who is prepared to discharge his liability. If the assurance is given that when the principal tax is paid, attachment shall be lifted, the buyer is prepared to pay the said tax amount. 6. The petitioner's application for amnesty came to be rejected by the impugned o .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

the petition contending that in terms of sections 47 and 48 of the VAT Act, transfer was void; that the department had the first charge. The erstwhile owners had not cleared the dues. The petitioner cannot seek lifting of the charge till such dues are cleared merely by offering to pay the petitioner's VAT dues. 9. The issue can be split into two parts. First is with respect to department's stand that till the petitioner clears the dues of the erstwhile owners, the charge on the properties cannot be cleared. Second is with respect to the petitioner's application for benefit of amnesty scheme. 10. So far as the first issue is concerned, department's stand is palpably wrong. This is so for the following reasons. Firstly, when .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ion for such purpose. We may recall the scheme of amnesty required the dealer desirous of taking benefit of amnesty scheme to apply latest by 31.3.2017. There has been no extension of this time limit thereafter. Along with the application, the dealer would have to deposit with the Government revenue, full principal tax dues upon which if the offer is accepted, the interest and penalty would be waived. In the present case, the petitioner did apply before the last date, nevertheless, his offer was conditional. The petitioner did not make payment of tax dues. He only indicated that he has a buyer and who also would pay the tax dues on a condition that department will thereafter lift the attachment on the properties. This was not an uncondition .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||