<?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>2019 (2) TMI 69 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374442</link>
    <description>Revenue cannot direct creation of an encumbrance over property purchased by a bona fide third-party purchaser before the dealer&#039;s assessment order, particularly where the properties were never attached and were free from encumbrance at the time of sale. The petitioner was unconnected with the dealer and had acquired the properties through earlier sale deeds, so the defaulter&#039;s tax liability could not be enforced against those assets. Relying on prior decisions protecting purchasers for value without notice, the court held the recovery action against the petitioner&#039;s properties was unsustainable and set aside the impugned communication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2019 09:23:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=556183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 69 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374442</link>
      <description>Revenue cannot direct creation of an encumbrance over property purchased by a bona fide third-party purchaser before the dealer&#039;s assessment order, particularly where the properties were never attached and were free from encumbrance at the time of sale. The petitioner was unconnected with the dealer and had acquired the properties through earlier sale deeds, so the defaulter&#039;s tax liability could not be enforced against those assets. Relying on prior decisions protecting purchasers for value without notice, the court held the recovery action against the petitioner&#039;s properties was unsustainable and set aside the impugned communication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374442</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>