9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 94 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRecovery of outstanding dues - liability of members of HUF is not joint or several - property under attachment was acquired by the member or by the HUF - GVAT - discontinuance of the business of Hindu Undivided Family - Held that - Tribunal was wholly justified in holding that the property of the individual member of the Hindu Undivided Family could not be attached under section 45 of the GVAT Act. - The impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, warranting interference. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. - Decided against the revenue.
Issues:
1. Whether the property was acquired by the member and not by the HUF? 2. Whether the liability of members of HUF is joint and several? Analysis: 1. The appellant, State of Gujarat, challenged an order passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal regarding the attachment of properties of an HUF for outstanding dues. The Tribunal held that the property belonged to a member and not the HUF. The appellant argued that each member of the HUF is liable for its dues, citing provisions of the GVAT Act. However, the respondent contended that the property was acquired by the wife of the karta of the HUF through gifts and did not fall under the Act's provisions for attachment. 2. The Tribunal found that the property in question was in the name of the wife of the karta of the HUF, acquired through gifts from family members. The appellant relied on sections 57 and 58 of the GVAT Act to justify the attachment. Section 57 imposes joint and several liability on HUF members for tax dues if the property is partitioned, which was not the case here. Section 58 applies when the HUF business is discontinued, which was not proven. The Tribunal correctly concluded that the attachment was not valid under these provisions. 3. The court referred to the definition of 'dealer' under the Act, including an HUF as a taxable entity distinct from its members. Citing a Supreme Court decision, it emphasized that proceedings for assessment and recovery of tax must be against the HUF as a whole, not individual members. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the property of an individual member of the HUF could not be attached under the GVAT Act. The appeal was dismissed, noting that the attachment had expired and was no longer effective.
|
