Attachment under tax recovery provisions requires proof of liability and ownership before goods can be validly attached.

Proceedings under section 38 of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 can be sustained only after the authority establishes, on proper inquiry, that money is actually payable by the petitioner to the defaulting dealer and that the attached goods belong to that dealer or are otherwise liable to attachment. Where the factual basis for disputed liability and ownership has not been categorically found, attachment cannot be upheld without evidence-based verification. The matter was remanded to the Commercial Tax Officer for fresh inquiry and a reasoned determination on those issues.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proceedings under section 38 of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 required a proper factual inquiry and findings on the disputed liability and ownership of the attached goods before the attachment could be sustained.

Analysis: The dispute concerned recovery of commercial tax dues by proceeding against goods said to be in the petitioner's possession. The Court held that section 38 could be invoked only after it was established to the satisfaction of the authority that money was actually payable by the petitioner to the defaulting dealer, and that the attached goods belonged to the defaulting dealer or were otherwise liable to attachment. Since no categorical finding had been recorded and no proper inquiry had been conducted on the relevant factual questions, the matter required factual verification and evidence before the authority.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Commercial Tax Officer for fresh inquiry and a reasoned decision on the identified issues.

---