TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the attachment of the petitioner's property could be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser protected by the proviso to Section 43 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
Analysis: Section 43 creates a clear embargo against transfers or charges made during the pendency of proceedings or after completion thereof when the transfer is intended to defraud revenue. The proviso saves only those transfers made for adequate consideration and without notice of the pending proceedings or the tax liability, or with the previous permission of the assessing authority. On the facts, the assessment proceedings and consequential demand culminated before the impugned attachment, and the Court found that the petitioner and the fifth respondent were known to each other and were engaged in the same business. In that context, the petitioner was held to have failed to establish a clear bona fide purchase so as to displace the statutory protection available to the revenue.
Conclusion: The challenge to the attachment and consequential communications was rejected, and the petitioner was directed to establish bona fides before the competent trial court in appropriate civil proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: A transfer of property does not receive protection under the proviso to Section 43 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 unless the purchaser proves adequate consideration and absence of notice of the pending proceedings or tax liability.
TaxTMI 
