Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the gift deed executed by the assessee in favour of his wife was a fraudulent transfer intended to defeat recovery of sales tax dues and therefore void under section 33-A of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
Analysis: The liability for sales tax dues had already accrued before the gift deed was executed. On the facts found, the transfer was made with the intention of defrauding the Revenue. The statutory requirement of section 33-A was therefore satisfied. The contention that the provision could not apply because it was inserted later was rejected, since the dues extended beyond the date of insertion and, in any event, the power to avoid a fraudulent transfer existed under the general law, including section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The claim that prior notice to the plaintiff was necessary was also rejected, as the plaintiff was required to establish her title when recovery was sought.
Conclusion: The gift deed was void as a fraudulent transfer and the challenge to recovery from the suit property failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A transfer made with intent to defeat a creditor's lawful recovery is void, and where the statutory elements of fraudulent transfer are proved, the transfer cannot defeat recovery proceedings.