9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 884 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxAttachment of property - non-payment of Value Added Tax by the erstwhile owner of the property - HELD THAT - It is likely to take a view that we would have jurisdiction to entertain this Petition as it could be said that a part of the cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. However, we note that the contesting parties are situated in Gujarat, the property which is sought to be attached, is situated in Gujarat, the Officers who have passed the impugned order under the Gujarat VAT Act, 2003 is also situated in Gujarat. In the above facts, taking into account the doctrine of forum convenience, it would be appropriate that we do not exercise our jurisdiction and as appropriate Court - petition disposed off.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Court, Attachment of Property for Nonpayment of Value Added Tax
Jurisdiction of the Court: The petition sought to set aside an order passed under Sections 45 and 45(1) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, attaching the property for nonpayment of Value Added Tax by the previous owner now in liquidation. The petitioner argued that since the impugned notice of attachment was received in Mumbai and the property was purchased there, the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Reference was made to the decision in Naval Kishor Sharma v/s. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 329 and Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. However, considering that the contesting parties, the property, and the officers involved were situated in Gujarat, the Court, applying the doctrine of forum convenience, decided not to exercise jurisdiction and deemed the appropriate court to be the Gujarat High Court as per the case law in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd., v/s. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254. Attachment of Property for Nonpayment of Value Added Tax: The property in question was attached for nonpayment of Value Added Tax by the previous owner, now in liquidation. The Respondents included the Financial Institution that sold the assets to the petitioner, the State of Gujarat, officers administrating the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, and the Official Liquidator of the previous owner. The Court had earlier directed all parties to maintain status-quo regarding possession and title of the property as an ad-interim relief. The petition was ultimately disposed of with the continuation of the status-quo relief for four weeks from the date of the order.
|
