https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393376 Recovery under Section 44 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act could not be directed against a bank that was neither the dealer's debtor nor a holder of the dealer's money, because the statutory precondition for such recovery was absent. The State also had no first charge over hypothecated goods or sale proceeds under Section 48 where tax liability had not been finally assessed and crystallised; a provisional attachment could not create a priority inconsistent with that scheme. On those facts, the recovery notices were set aside and the sale proceeds, after limited reimbursement to the warehousing corporation, were directed to be released to the bank. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Mar 2020 12:00:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393376 Recovery under Section 44 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act could not be directed against a bank that was neither the dealer's debtor nor a holder of the dealer's money, because the statutory precondition for such recovery was absent. The State also had no first charge over hypothecated goods or sale proceeds under Section 48 where tax liability had not been finally assessed and crystallised; a provisional attachment could not create a priority inconsistent with that scheme. On those facts, the recovery notices were set aside and the sale proceeds, after limited reimbursement to the warehousing corporation, were directed to be released to the bank. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393376