Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the respondents could invoke Section 44 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 to attach the personal immovable properties of the director and the brother of the director for recovery of the company's tax dues, in the absence of a debtor-creditor relationship and without issuing the notice contemplated by the provision.
Analysis: Section 44 is in the nature of garnishee proceedings and can be used only against 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 provision presupposes a subsisting debtor-creditor relationship between the dealer and the person proceeded against. The Court held that the personal properties of the director and his brother could not be treated as the company's assets or as money due to the company. It further noted that no notice was served on them in the manner required by Section 44, and therefore they were deprived of the opportunity to object and be heard before coercive recovery action was taken. Since taxing statutes must be construed strictly, the department could not extend the provision beyond its clear language.
Conclusion: Invocation of Section 44 against the personal properties of the director and the brother was not justified, and the attachment was held to be without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.