2020 (2) TMI 475 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Attachment of property/land of the petitioner - removal of charge of the sales tax department on the land/property - Section 49(2) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 - HELD THAT - It is accepted in the affidavit- in- reply that the requisite amount for the assessment year 2001 -2002 has been paid by the writ applicant. In the same manner it has been accepted that the requisite amount for the year 2007 -2008 has also been paid by the writ applicant. If we go by the prayer clause there is a reference of two notices i.e. for the year 2001- 2002 and 2007 -2008. Pursuant to the impugned notices an order of attachment came to be passed with respect to the land bearing survey Nos.3341/1/2/3/4/5 3346/1/4 3126 3127 3335 3336/1/2/3 3121 3122 3223 3124 3342 and 3343. Since the attachment of the aforesaid parcels of land owned by the writ applicant is directly connected with the two notices dated 18th January 2012 and 2nd February 2012 respectively and as the payment has been made the attachment should go. There should not be any difficulty in quashing and setting aside the two impugned notices. Once the impugned notices are quashed the attachment as per such notices would no longer survive and once the attachment goes the charge which has been created over the property pursuant to such notices would also not survive - application allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notices dated 18.01.2012 and 02.02.2012.
2. Attachment of the petitioner’s property due to outstanding sales tax liabilities.
3. Payment of compensation for acquired land.
4. Pending appeal for the assessment year 2000-01.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Notices Dated 18.01.2012 and 02.02.2012:
The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing electrical goods, challenged the notices issued under Section 152 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, stating that their property would be seized if the outstanding sales tax liabilities for the years 2001-02, 2006-07, and 2007-08 were not paid. The petitioner argued that the tax liabilities for these years had already been settled. The court noted that the state respondents, in their affidavit-in-reply, acknowledged that the requisite amounts for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2007-08 had been paid by the petitioner. Consequently, the notices for these years were deemed unnecessary, and the court quashed them.

2. Attachment of the Petitioner’s Property Due to Outstanding Sales Tax Liabilities:
The petitioner’s property was attached based on the impugned notices. The court observed that since the payments for the years 2001-02 and 2007-08 had been made, the attachment of the property should be revoked. The court ordered that once the notices were quashed, the attachment and the charge created over the property would no longer survive.

3. Payment of Compensation for Acquired Land:
The petitioner’s land was acquired by the respondent No. 5 for the construction of a six-lane national highway, but compensation was not paid due to the attachment and charge over the land. The court clarified that it would not delve into the issue of acquisition and compensation in this litigation. However, it noted that once the notices were quashed and the attachment revoked, the petitioner could pursue the compensation claim with the respondent No. 5 in accordance with the law.

4. Pending Appeal for the Assessment Year 2000-01:
The court acknowledged that the petitioner had an appeal pending against the final order of assessment for the year 2000-01, which had been pending for almost fifteen years. The court directed the respondent No. 2 to expedite the hearing and disposal of this appeal in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ application, quashing the impugned notices dated 18.01.2012 and 02.02.2012. It ordered that the attachment of the petitioner’s property pursuant to these notices be revoked, and the charge of the Sales Tax Department over the land be removed. The court also directed the respondent No. 2 to expedite the pending appeal for the assessment year 2000-01. The petitioner was advised to take up the compensation issue with the respondent No. 5 once the attachment was lifted.

← Previous Next →