AKIL KURESHI, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 21.3.2017 as at Annexure-A to the petition by which the petitioner's application for benefit of an amnesty scheme framed by the Government came to be rejected.

2. Facts are as under. Petitioner no.1 is a public limited company. Petitioner no.2 is the Managing Director of the company. The company purchased certain immovable properties in November 2007 through registered sale deeds in the nature of plot of land with factory situated in survey no.7 of village Vadadla, District Bharuch from one M/s. Sonic Watches Ltd and another situated at survey no.8 of the same village from one Mahendrakumar Mohanlal Majithia for the purpose of manufacturing and coating of watch straps and accessories. The sales were also reflected in the revenue records. At the relevant time in the revenue records, no charge of the department was reflected. However, it seems that the erstwhile owners had certain outstanding dues of the VAT department. Subsequent to the transfers also, the assessments were carried out in case of transferors further confirming the VAT dues.

3. Case of the petitioner is that the business of the petitioner went sick due to which the petitioner could not pay its VAT liabilities as well as the bank dues mainly of the Bank of India and Punjab National Bank. The Bank of India has initiated action under SARFAESI Act against the petitioners. We are not concerned with such proceedings in the present petition.

4. Case of the petitioner is that the company found a prospective buyer who was prepared to discharge the dues of VAT department as well as those of the lender banks. In the meantime, the Government of Gujarat came up with a tax amnesty scheme promulgated under circular dated 1.8.2016. The petitioner was eligible to receive the benefits of the said scheme. Extended last date for applying for the scheme was 31.3.2017. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, his case fell under the first part of the scheme where the assessment was complete and case did not involve any tax evasion. In such cases, if the dealer paid the entire principal tax dues, interest and penalty would be waived.

5. The petitioner applied for the benefit of amnesty scheme on 20.2.2017 in the prescribed proforma. Along with the prescribed format, the petitioner attached a separate letter to the Commissioner of Value Added Tax in which he stated that as per his calculation, his outstanding tax comes to Rs.76,16,708/-. The company has closed down. The petitioner does not have money to pay such sum. However, there is a buyer who is prepared to discharge his liability. If the assurance is given that when the principal tax is paid, attachment shall be lifted, the buyer is prepared to pay the said tax amount.

6. The petitioner's application for amnesty came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 21.3.2017. In such order, the authority conveyed to the petitioner that the erstwhile owners from whom the petitioner had purchased the properties have huge outstanding tax dues. Their transfers therefore was fraudulent in terms of section 47 of the VAT Act. The petitioner would therefore, be liable to pay the outstanding dues of the erstwhile owners.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner cannot be held liable for the dues of the erstwhile owners for the following reasons :

(1) When the petitioner purchased the properties, there was no charge of the department reflected in the revenue records. The petitioner was therefore, a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

(2) Majority of the outstanding VAT demands of the erstwhile owners arose out of the date of transfer. In any case, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for such dues.

(3) In any case section 47 of the VAT Act refers to the sale transaction being void. If the department desired to declare such sale as void it had to apply to the Civil Court. In any case, department cannot rake up such an old issue after more than 10