The courts found the sale deed fraudulent to evade tax liability, thus affirming the dismissal of the suit based on lack of evidence and legal precedent concerning Sales Tax jurisdiction.

JUDGEMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 13 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH /sd­ ========================================= A Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO

4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO

5. Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================= VARSHABEN PINAKINBHAI RUPARELIA ­ Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 ­ Defendant(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Appellant(s) : 1, MR. PRANAV DAVE ASSIT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Defendant(s) : 1 ­ 2. None for Defendant(s) : 3 ­ 4.

========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 10/05/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0. Present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant herein­original plaintiff to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.8.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Amreli 2/10 JUDGMENT passed in Regular Civil Suit No.125 of 1990 by which the learned trial Court has dismissed the said suit preferred by the appellant herein­original plaintiff as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court –learned Joint District Judge­ 1st Fast Track Court, Amreli dated 30.4.2005 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.47 of 1998 by which the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein­original plaintiff and has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit.

2.0. That the appellant herein­original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.125 of 1990 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Amreli against the respondents herein –original defendants for declaration that the suit property in question is not liable for attachment and not liable to be auctioned in respect of the dues to the sales tax of one M/s. Pinakin Oil Mill and that order of attachment issued by defendant no.2 dated 22.11.1989 with respect to the suit property for the dues of the sales tax of M/s. Pinakin Oil Mill is illegal and without jurisdiction. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiff that all of them were partners of one partnership firm Shri Jalaram finance which was constituted on 19.11.1985. That the said firm was registered under the provision of Indian Partnership Act. That the said partnership firm was started from streedhan and the said firm continued their business for two years and thereafter all of them shifted from Amreli to Mumbai and thereafter they dissolved the said partnership firm and from the income of the said partnership firm and other property of streedhan, they purchased three plots in question for total 3/10 JUDGMENT consideration of Rs. 1,32,000/­ on 19.5.1987 from one M/s. Pinakin Oil Mill by registered sale deed and since then they are the sole owner and in possession of the suit land. That thereafter, the defendant no.2 –Sales Tax Officer passed an order dated 22.11.1989 to attach the suit property of the plaintiffs (the properties originally belonged to M/s. Pinakin Oil Mill which they have purchased by registered sale deed dated 19.5.1987), under the provision of Section 73 of the Sales Tax Act. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that before passing said order the defendants have not given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the plaintiffs. That thereafter for the dues of the M/s. Pinakin Oil Mi