Provisional attachment cannot reach a lessor's land for a lessee's tax dues where separate legal identity is preserved.

Provisional attachment under the Gujarat VAT Act could be made only against a dealer's property, and recovery from a third party required that person to fall within the recovery provision's limited scope. A lessor who merely owned land and leased it to the defaulting company did not lose separate legal identity protection because common directors existed, so the lessee's tax dues could not be enforced against the lessor's land. The Court also held that the lessor was not an "other person" holding money for or due to the dealer, so the charge and revenue mutation had no legal basis. The attachment and mutation were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether immovable property owned by the writ applicant could be provisionally attached and recovered against for tax dues of the lessee-company under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003; (ii) Whether the writ applicant fell within the expression "other person" in the recovery provisions so as to justify attachment and mutation of a charge in revenue records.

Issue (i): Whether immovable property owned by the writ applicant could be provisionally attached and recovered against for tax dues of the lessee-company under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: Section 45 permits provisional attachment only of property belonging to the dealer, and Section 46 is a recovery provision for arrears of tax, penalty, or interest due from the dealer or other person. The Court held that the writ applicant was the lawful owner of the land and had only leased it to the defaulting company. The existence of common directors did not alter the separate legal identity of the companies, and the dues of the defaulting company could not be recovered from the lessor's property. The Court also noted that the land was distinct from the plant and machinery owned by the lessee.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment of the writ applicant's land was invalid and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ applicant fell within the expression "other person" in the recovery provisions so as to justify attachment and mutation of a charge in revenue records.

Analysis: Reading Section 46 with Section 44, the expression "other person" was held to refer to a person from whom money is due or may become due to the dealer, or who holds money for or on account of the dealer. The writ applicant, as owner-lessor of the land, did not answer that description. Since the land itself could not be attached, the consequential creation of a charge and mutation of revenue entry also lacked legal foundation.

Conclusion: The writ applicant did not fall within the expression "other person", and the charge and mutation entry were unlawful.

Final Conclusion: The attachment and revenue mutation against the writ applicant's land were quashed, while the ruling preserved the Department's liberty to proceed against the lessee-company's own plant and machinery for its tax liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, provisional attachment and recovery can be effected only against the dealer's property or against persons covered by the recovery provisions as construed in context, and a lessor's property cannot be proceeded against merely because the lessee is the defaulting dealer.

---