https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421879 Section 44 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 operates as a garnishee-style recovery provision and can be invoked only where the person proceeded against owes money to the dealer or holds money for or on account of the dealer. The Gujarat High Court found no legal nexus showing that the writ applicants were debtors of the dealer or held dealer funds, and held that the statutory notice and inquiry safeguards under sub-section (5) were mandatory before recovery against an objecting person. In their absence, attachment of the applicants' personal and individual assets was beyond jurisdiction and arbitrary, and the attachment was lifted except for the property specifically covered by the notice. en-us Thu, 07 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 May 2022 08:30:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421879 Section 44 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 operates as a garnishee-style recovery provision and can be invoked only where the person proceeded against owes money to the dealer or holds money for or on account of the dealer. The Gujarat High Court found no legal nexus showing that the writ applicants were debtors of the dealer or held dealer funds, and held that the statutory notice and inquiry safeguards under sub-section (5) were mandatory before recovery against an objecting person. In their absence, attachment of the applicants' personal and individual assets was beyond jurisdiction and arbitrary, and the attachment was lifted except for the property specifically covered by the notice. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 07 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421879