2018 (3) TMI 586

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....titioner no.2 is the Managing Director of the company. The company purchased certain immovable properties in November 2007 through registered sale deeds in the nature of plot of land with factory situated in survey no.7 of village Vadadla, District Bharuch from one M/s. Sonic Watches Ltd and another situated at survey no.8 of the same village from one Mahendrakumar Mohanlal Majithia for the purpose of manufacturing and coating of watch straps and accessories. The sales were also reflected in the revenue records. At the relevant time in the revenue records, no charge of the department was reflected. However, it seems that the erstwhile owners had certain outstanding dues of the VAT department. Subsequent to the transfers also, the assessment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... money to pay such sum. However, there is a buyer who is prepared to discharge his liability. If the assurance is given that when the principal tax is paid, attachment shall be lifted, the buyer is prepared to pay the said tax amount. 6. The petitioner's application for amnesty came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 21.3.2017. In such order, the authority conveyed to the petitioner that the erstwhile owners from whom the petitioner had purchased the properties have huge outstanding tax dues. Their transfers therefore was fraudulent in terms of section 47 of the VAT Act. The petitioner would therefore, be liable to pay the outstanding dues of the erstwhile owners. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner can....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e petitioner clears the dues of the erstwhile owners, the charge on the properties cannot be cleared. Second is with respect to the petitioner's application for benefit of amnesty scheme. 10. So far as the first issue is concerned, department's stand is palpably wrong. This is so for the following reasons. Firstly, when the petitioner purchased the properties, no charge of the department was reflected in the revenue records. There is nothing on record to suggest that to defeat the interest of the revenue, erstwhile owners had transferred the properties to the petitioner who happen to be close relatives or that the transfer was without full consideration. The element of transfer being fraudulent is therefore, not established. Second....