<?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 (4) TMI 1716 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379272</link>
    <description>A statutory charge under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act could not be enforced against a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, because Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act protects a transferee unless the statute expressly overrides that protection. The record showed no actual or constructive notice of the charge, the encumbrance certificate disclosed no encumbrance, and there was no evidence of collusion. Section 24-A was held not to contain any express provision authorising enforcement against a transferee without notice. The impugned notice was therefore unsustainable, the writ petition succeeded, and the department was left free to proceed against the dealer according to law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=569011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1716 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379272</link>
      <description>A statutory charge under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act could not be enforced against a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, because Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act protects a transferee unless the statute expressly overrides that protection. The record showed no actual or constructive notice of the charge, the encumbrance certificate disclosed no encumbrance, and there was no evidence of collusion. Section 24-A was held not to contain any express provision authorising enforcement against a transferee without notice. The impugned notice was therefore unsustainable, the writ petition succeeded, and the department was left free to proceed against the dealer according to law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379272</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>