https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254800 Revenue authorities could not sustain attachment of the property or refuse registration of the sale deed for alleged tax dues where neither the petitioner nor the transferor was established as a dealer under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The Court reiterated that disputed questions of title, benami allegations, and whether a transfer is fraudulent cannot be conclusively decided in writ or revenue recovery proceedings and must be left to civil adjudication. It also noted the statutory presumption under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 where property is purchased in a wife's name. The attachment was quashed and execution and registration of the sale deed were permitted. en-us Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Dec 2019 18:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254800 Revenue authorities could not sustain attachment of the property or refuse registration of the sale deed for alleged tax dues where neither the petitioner nor the transferor was established as a dealer under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The Court reiterated that disputed questions of title, benami allegations, and whether a transfer is fraudulent cannot be conclusively decided in writ or revenue recovery proceedings and must be left to civil adjudication. It also noted the statutory presumption under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 where property is purchased in a wife's name. The attachment was quashed and execution and registration of the sale deed were permitted. Case-Laws Benami Property Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254800