The petitioner challenged proceedings declaring a property sale as void under Section 17-A of the APGST Act on the ground that the transfer was allegedly made to evade sales tax dues of a private limited company under liquidation. The factual background showed that the sale was executed years prior for consideration and without notice of pending proceedings.
The Court held that invocation of Section 17-A requires proof that the transfer was made to defraud revenue and that adequate consideration and bona fide purchase are protected under the proviso. In the absence of material establishing fraudulent intent, the impugned proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction and were set aside.