9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of the petitioner started his current business in the year 1998. The sales tax dues pertain to the Assessment Year 1999-00. Nothing has been stated in the affidavit in reply to justify the action of the Department in attaching the property of the petitioner for the dues of her husband. By merely stating that only qua share of the husband, the said property was attached, would nor further the case of the Department. This is in fact curious statement. It does not clarify whether the share referred to is that of the sales tax dues or of the interest in the property. If later is the case, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the husband had any right, title or interest in such property - Mere reference to the powers under Section 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es for such concern. Since there were sales tax, State as well as Central dues of the husband of the petitioner, the Department attached the property of the petitioner. No formal order was served to the petitioner. However, the petitioner came to know about the same when the petitioner tried to sale the property and the transfer was prevented by Kandla Port Trust on account of such attachment. The petitioner has thereupon filed this petition with a prayer to quash the action of the Sales Tax Department in attaching her property for the dues of the husband. 3. Respondent No.1 has appeared and filed reply and contended that for the Assessment Year 1999-00, the husband of the petitioner had to pay State sales tax dues of ₹ 43.88 lacs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nothing on the record to suggest that the husband had any right, title or interest in such property. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner correctly drew our attention to two judgments of Division Benches of this Court in cases of Jayesh Vadilal Parekh Vs. Commercial Tax Officer-TWO Ors. in SCA No.2320 of 2014 dated 11.09.2014 and Jashiben Vishnubhai Patel Vs. Assistant of Sales Tax in SCA No.1144 of 2015 dated 30.04.2015, in which, under similar situation, the Court had quashed the action of the Department. 6. Mere reference to the powers under Section 48A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act would not save the situation for the Department. Such powers can be exercised only where the facts so permit. 7. In the result, the petition is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
