TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is required to be quashed and set aside. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17890 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 11-4-2019 - MS HARSHA DEVANI AND MR BHARGAV D. KARIA, JJ. For The Petitioner (s) : UCHIT N SHETH (7336) For The Respondent (s) : MR SOAHAM JOSHI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. The learned advocate for the petitioners has tendered a purshish to place on record communication dated 29.12.2007 of the petitioners, addressed to the Bank of India, Ahmedabad. The same is taken on record. 2. Rule. Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raw materials in the factory, resulting into their death, which led the petitioners getting embroiled in litigation and consequently, closure of the business of petitioners. 4.3 It is further the case of the petitioners that in December, 2007, recovery notices came to be issued to the second petitioner for alleged dues under the Sales Tax Act for the years 1998-99, 2002-03 and 2003-04; however, as the petitioners were not aware of any orders, they requested the respondents to provide copies of the orders passed, if any, but there was no response whatsoever received from the respondent authorities. Thereafter, again in October, 2009 and January, 2010, notices for recovery of the same dues were received by the petitioners. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of the aforesaid three assessment years. 4.6 It is further the case of the petitioners that the petitioner vide letter dated 22.1.2018, immediately objected to such action on part of the respondents and requested them to provide copies of the assessment orders, on the basis of which the recovery proceedings were being undertaken by the respondent No.2. The petitioners also sent reminder on 31.1.2018, but there was no response from the respondents. 4.7 It is further the case of the petitioners that since there was no response from the respondents, the petitioners applied for the copies of the assessment orders under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking copies of the assessment orders pursuant to whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the petitioners to the respondent authorities to supply the copies of the assessment orders, the respondent authorities did not supply such assessment orders to the petitioners. It was submitted that the petitioners also submitted to the respondent authorities that for recovery of the dues of the Private Limited Company, personal properties of the Director of the Company cannot be attached under the provisions of the Code. 6.1 In support of his submissions, the learned advocate placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of M. R. Chokshi v. State of Gujarat , 51 VST 73 (Guj.) , wherein this court has held that in the absence of any provision permitting the sales tax authority to fasten the liability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sale transaction was made on 28.12.2007. Therefore, such a sale transaction lacks bona fide and is with a clear intention to deprive the department of its legitimate dues. It was further submitted that the department considering the registered sale document, had no option at that point of time but to lift the attachment. It was submitted that therefore, at the same time the petitioner No.1 who is Director of the petitioner No.2 cannot run away from the liability arising out of the tax dues under the Sales Tax Act / Central Sales Tax Act and therefore, the attachment in question on the residential property of the first petitioner has been effected. 7.1 It was further submitted that as per the record of the department, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not in dispute that the property which is attached by the impugned notice is of the ownership of the petitioner No.1, who is the Director of the petitioner No.2 Company and therefore, as held by the Supreme Court in M. R. Chokshi v. State of Gujarat (supra), no attachment can be made. There is no provision in the Act fastening the liability of the Company to pay its sales tax dues to its Director and therefore, the impugned attachment notice dated 27.12.2017, is required to be quashed and set aside as the controversy in question is squarely covered by the above referred decision of this court. Other contentions raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties are not gone into in view of the settled position of law that the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
