TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Assistant Commissioner's Authority to Pass Provisional Attachment Orders</h1> <h3>Shrimati Priti Versus State of Gujarat</h3> Shrimati Priti Versus State of Gujarat - TMI Issues Involved:The legality of provisional attachment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner u/s 45 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and the communication dated 19.11.2010 challenging the same.Factual Background:An immovable property was purchased by the petitioner from a creditor bank directly in discharge of dues of the principal borrower, M/s. Hirak Biotech Limited. The property was put under provisional attachment by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax due to outstanding Value Added Tax dues of approximately &8377; 2,40,09,444 from the Company. The petitioner challenged the provisional attachment orders and subsequent communication in the present petition.Contentions Raised:1) The power to order provisional attachment u/s 45 of the VAT Act vests with the Commissioner, not the Deputy Commissioner.2) An order of provisional attachment can only be effective for one year, and no fresh order can be passed thereafter.3) Lack of evidence to show that the Commissioner formed an opinion for the necessity of provisional attachment.4) The petitioner is a purchaser of the property for value without notice.Court's Analysis:- The Court clarified that the Assistant Commissioner had the delegated power to pass provisional attachment orders.- The Court found that assessment proceedings were pending when the provisional attachment order was passed.- The contention that a provisional attachment can only last for one year was dismissed, stating that fresh orders can be passed if deemed necessary to safeguard the Revenue's interest.- The Court differentiated the present case from the Division Bench judgment regarding priority of State dues, as the statutory provisions were different.- The Court refrained from discussing the priority of State dues and other related aspects as they were not the issues in the present petition.- After examining the validity of the provisional attachment order, the Court concluded that no case was made out and dismissed the petition.Conclusion:The petition challenging the provisional attachment orders and communication was dismissed based on the Court's analysis and conclusions similar to a previous order in a related case.
TaxTMI 