https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384762 Where recovery had already been stayed by the first appellate authority and the first appeal remained pending on merits, coercive auction of the attached property was not permitted pending final adjudication. The question whether the transfer amounted to a fraudulent transfer under Section 47 of the VAT Act was reserved for determination in the appellate proceedings, and the alleged relinquishment of share in the property was not examined at that stage. Interim protection was therefore continued against sale of the property, while the appellate authority remained free to decide the appeal on merits. en-us Wed, 21 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Aug 2019 21:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384762 Where recovery had already been stayed by the first appellate authority and the first appeal remained pending on merits, coercive auction of the attached property was not permitted pending final adjudication. The question whether the transfer amounted to a fraudulent transfer under Section 47 of the VAT Act was reserved for determination in the appellate proceedings, and the alleged relinquishment of share in the property was not examined at that stage. Interim protection was therefore continued against sale of the property, while the appellate authority remained free to decide the appeal on merits. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 21 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384762