Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)

M/S.Showtech Stone International Pvt. ... vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I, ... on 28 August, 2014

Sri J.V. Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, as the fourth respondent was in default of payment of value added tax for the years 2005-06 to 2007-08, the department should have exercised abundant caution by notifying the properties of the fourth respondent to the public; without taking any precautionary steps, they had abruptly issued the impugned notices to a genuine dealer; the petitioner cannot be made a scapegoat for the negligent acts of the first and second respondents; they had purchased the land in good faith, under a bonafide belief, and without being aware of the tax arrears due from the defaulting dealer i.e., the fourth respondent; the first respondent cannot proceed against them, for recovery of the tax arrears of the defaulting dealer, under Section 27(1) of the A.P.VAT Act; the first respondent can only proceed against the defaulting dealer who is an existing registered dealer on the rolls of the third respondent; they could not, therefore, have proceeded against the petitioner without making any attempt to realize tax arrears from the fourth respondent; the respondents are not justified in asking the petitioner to discharge the liability of the defaulting dealer; the fourth respodnent had stated, in the registered sale deed, that they had paid all taxes due to the commercial tax department; as the petitioner was informed that there were no arrears of tax, they had purchased the subject land after taking all necessary precautions; the competent authority had, by letter dated 31.05.2007, granted them permission to quarry the subject land; and the action of the respondents, in proceeding against them, is contrary to law. Learned Counsel would rely on Abdul Shukoor v. Arji Papa Rao ; Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Haji Abdul Gafur Haji Hussenbhai ; State of Karnataka v. Shreyas Papers P. Ltd. ; Deputy Commercial Tax Officer v. R.K. Steels Ltd ; Rukmani v. Deputy CTO (Mad.)
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 49 - Cited by 1 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Tatineni Subash Chandra Bose vs Alla Satya Veera Pothuraju And Another on 26 December, 2016

The decision in Abdul Shakoor supra is very clear of when there is nothing to show other property left to meet the debts, it shall be presumed the alienation is to defeat the creditors particularly the transaction without consideration. It is needless to say from the settled law the creditors include prospective creditors and there need not be existence of debt by the time of transfer.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - B S Rao - Full Document

Sri Kokkirapati Venkata Ratham vs Sri Mellimi Samuel John (Died) And ... on 27 December, 2017

Further, the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Abdul Shukoor Saheb v. Arji Papa Rao , referring to Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, held that even a transferee in good faith to claim as bonafide transferee for consideration without notice of the earlier defects must establish the same for which also the burden lies on such transferee to claim exemption from proceeding against the property in question. Thereby, the impugned dismissal orders of the lower Court are unsustainable and are set aside by remanding the matter to the lower Court by restoring the two applications with a direction to conduct enquiry afresh by recording evidence and decide on own merits afresh.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - B S Rao - Full Document
1