Statutory authority for restraint on property transfer is essential; a bare tax recovery request was unenforceable.

A communication restraining transfer or movement of machinery and fixed assets was unenforceable because it did not disclose any statutory source of power. Although Section 46 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 permits recovery of tax dues as arrears of land revenue through the relevant revenue authorities under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, the impugned letter did not proceed under that mechanism. It was merely a request to the SEZ authority, unsupported by law, and therefore created no enforceable obligation. The petition was allowed, the SEZ authority was restrained from acting on the communication, and other contentions were left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the communication issued by the Commercial Tax Officer restraining transfer or movement of machinery and fixed assets, without disclosing any statutory source of power, was valid and enforceable.

Analysis: The communication was tested against the recovery mechanism under Section 46 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which authorises recovery of tax dues as arrears of land revenue by exercising the powers of the relevant revenue authorities under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. The impugned communication did not refer to, or proceed under, any such statutory power. It was merely a request to the SEZ authority, unsupported by any legal authority, and therefore did not create any enforceable obligation.

Conclusion: The communication was held to be without authority of law, non est, and liable to be ignored.

Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed and the SEZ authority was restrained from acting on the impugned communication, with the other contentions left open.

Ratio Decidendi: A direction affecting property rights or restraint on transfer, if not issued in exercise of a disclosed statutory power, is unenforceable and non est.

---