Revenue attachment cannot bar sale deed registration where dealer status is unproven and title disputes require civil adjudication.

Revenue authorities could not sustain attachment of the property or refuse registration of the sale deed for alleged tax dues where neither the petitioner nor the transferor was established as a dealer under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The Court reiterated that disputed questions of title, benami allegations, and whether a transfer is fraudulent cannot be conclusively decided in writ or revenue recovery proceedings and must be left to civil adjudication. It also noted the statutory presumption under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 where property is purchased in a wife's name. The attachment was quashed and execution and registration of the sale deed were permitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revenue authorities could insist on attachment of the property and refuse registration of the sale deed for alleged tax dues of a third person, and whether disputed title and benami allegations could be conclusively decided in writ proceedings.

Analysis: Sections 47 and 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 operate against a dealer who transfers property to defeat revenue and create a first charge on the dealer's property. The Court held that those provisions were not attracted on the facts because neither the petitioner nor the transferor was established to be a dealer under the Act. Relying on the principle stated in the decisions concerning section 281 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Court reiterated that questions of title and whether a transfer is void as benami or fraudulent require adjudication by a civil court and cannot be conclusively determined by the revenue authorities in recovery proceedings. The Court also noted the statutory presumption under section 3 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 where property is purchased in the name of a wife, and held that the rival assertions on benami, title, and limitation were matters to be left open for appropriate proceedings.

Conclusion: The attachment direction was quashed and the respondent was directed to permit execution and registration of the sale deed. The revenue was left at liberty to pursue civil remedies on the disputed title issues.

Final Conclusion: Revenue recovery measures could not be sustained against the impugned property in the writ proceedings, and the petitioner was entitled to complete the conveyance, while title-related disputes remained open for adjudication before the civil court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where property is held by a person not shown to be the dealer liable for tax, disputed questions of title or benami transfer cannot be conclusively determined by the revenue authority in recovery proceedings and must be left to civil adjudication.

---