9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (10) TMI 556 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
Challenge to property attachment under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. Analysis: The writ petitioners contested the attachment of property by the fourth respondent under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioners argued that they purchased the property through registered sale deeds, unaware of the seller's tax arrears. The Act stipulates that tax due to the government is the first charge on the dealer's property. Section 17-A of the Act renders transfers made to defraud revenue void, except transfers for adequate consideration and without notice of pending proceedings or tax liabilities. The burden of proof initially lies with the department to establish fraudulent intent behind the property transfer. In this case, the department failed to demonstrate that the petitioners were complicit in any fraud against the government. The petitioners proved they were bona fide purchasers by showing payment of adequate consideration, obtaining necessary certificates, and registering the documents. The court emphasized that if fraud is proven, the petitioners must show they were not involved in the fraudulent scheme. The judgment in C. Abdul Shukoor Saheb v. Arji Papa Rao AIR 1963 SC 1150 was cited, highlighting the importance of establishing good faith and consideration in property transfers. The court held that the onus is on the department to prove fraud initially, and if successful, the burden shifts to the petitioners to demonstrate their innocence in the fraudulent transaction. Reference was made to Ganji Venkateswara Rao v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [2001] 124 STC 705 (AP) to indicate that a civil suit remedy is available under specific circumstances. However, since the department did not assert the petitioners' involvement in any fraud, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, quashing the notices and allowing the writ petitions. The judgment was delivered by the honorable judges BILAL NAZKI and ANANDA REDDY S. on October 5, 2004.
|
