Attachment of third-party property for another's tax dues requires a proven legal interest or benami basis, not mere assertion.

Property purchased by a wife on leasehold rights could not be attached for her husband's sales tax dues absent material showing that he funded the purchase, held any beneficial interest, or that the transaction was benami. The husband's business and tax liability arose later, and there was no legal basis to proceed against property in which he had no established right, title or interest. A bare assertion that attachment was limited to his share was insufficient. Section 48A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act could be invoked only where the facts and law supported such attachment, which was not shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Sales Tax Department could attach the petitioner's property for the tax dues of her husband.

Analysis: The property was purchased by the petitioner in 1994 on leasehold rights, and there was no material to show that the husband had funded the purchase or that the transaction was benami. The husband's business and the tax liabilities arose later, and the affidavit did not disclose any legal basis for proceeding against property in which he had no established right, title or interest. A mere assertion that the attachment was only to the extent of the husband's share did not justify the action. The power under Section 48A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act could be exercised only where the facts and law permitted such attachment, which was not shown here.

Conclusion: The attachment of the petitioner's property for the husband's sales tax dues was not sustainable and was quashed.

---