<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (12) TMI 494 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168167</link>
    <description>A bona fide purchaser for value from a secured creditor&#039;s sale was protected against sales tax attachment where the tax department had no first charge over the property. The court treated the secured debt as prevailing over an unsecured sales tax claim, so the purchaser&#039;s title could not be defeated on that basis. It also found that the earlier attachment, though communicated to revenue authorities, was not duly reflected in the revenue record for a long period, and the undisclosed encumbrance could not prejudice a purchaser without notice. The later appellate reduction of the assessee&#039;s liability further weakened the basis for continuing attachment, so the attachment orders could not survive against the property.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2015 17:59:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374561" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 494 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168167</link>
      <description>A bona fide purchaser for value from a secured creditor&#039;s sale was protected against sales tax attachment where the tax department had no first charge over the property. The court treated the secured debt as prevailing over an unsecured sales tax claim, so the purchaser&#039;s title could not be defeated on that basis. It also found that the earlier attachment, though communicated to revenue authorities, was not duly reflected in the revenue record for a long period, and the undisclosed encumbrance could not prejudice a purchaser without notice. The later appellate reduction of the assessee&#039;s liability further weakened the basis for continuing attachment, so the attachment orders could not survive against the property.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168167</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>