Court rules petitioner not liable for previous owners' dues, criticizes department delay, denies amnesty benefits.

The court overturned the rejection of the petitioner's application for an amnesty scheme, ruling that the petitioner was not liable for the previous owners' dues. The court criticized the department's delay in taking legal action and emphasized that the transfer was not fraudulent. However, the court denied the petitioner's request for amnesty benefits due to the conditional nature of their offer, which did not align with the scheme's requirements for an unconditional application with full tax payment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of petitioner's application for benefit of an amnesty scheme.
2. Liability of petitioner for dues of erstwhile owners.
3. Department's stand on clearing dues of erstwhile owners before lifting charge.
4. Petitioner's application for benefit of amnesty scheme under specific conditions.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application for an amnesty scheme by the Government. The petitioner, a public limited company, purchased properties in 2007, but the previous owners had outstanding VAT dues. The petitioner's business suffered, and they found a buyer willing to pay off the dues. The Government introduced an amnesty scheme, and the petitioner applied before the deadline but with a conditional offer. The application was rejected based on the outstanding dues of the previous owners, deeming the transfer fraudulent.

2. The petitioner argued that they should not be liable for the previous owners' dues as they were bona fide purchasers without notice of the charges. They contended that the department cannot declare the sale void unilaterally after a significant period without taking legal action. The court found the department's stance incorrect, emphasizing that the transfer was not fraudulent, and the department should have pursued legal avenues earlier if the transfer was void.

3. Regarding the department's insistence on clearing the previous owners' dues before lifting the charge, the court held that the department's approach was flawed. The court highlighted that there was no evidence of fraudulent transfer and that the department's delay in taking action for ten years weakened their position. The court cited precedents indicating that the department must resort to legal procedures to declare a transfer void.

4. In terms of the petitioner's application for the amnesty scheme, the court found that the petitioner's offer was conditional and did not meet the scheme's requirements. The court noted that the scheme necessitated an unconditional application with full payment of tax dues. The court ruled that the petitioner's offer, dependent on the department lifting the attachment, was not a valid offer under the scheme. Consequently, the court denied the petitioner's request for belated benefit under the amnesty scheme, despite ruling in their favor on the issue of liability for previous owners' dues.

In conclusion, the court set aside the impugned order, disposing of the petition while providing detailed reasoning for each issue raised in the case.

---