JUDGMENT : 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. 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 years of transfer. Counsel further submitted that the authority committed a serious error in rejecting the application of the petitioner for amnesty only on this ground. The petitioner had applied in time and had offered to pay the entire tax dues if the attachment was lifted. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel Ms. Counsel further submitted that the authority committed a serious error in rejecting the application of the petitioner for amnesty only on this ground. The petitioner had applied in time and had offered to pay the entire tax dues if the attachment was lifted. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel Ms. Shruti Pathak for the department opposed the petition contending that in terms of sections 47 and 48 of the VAT Act, transfer was void; that the department had the first charge. The erstwhile owners had not cleared the dues. The petitioner cannot seek lifting of the charge till such dues are cleared merely by offering to pay the petitioner's VAT dues. 9. The issue can be split into two parts. First is with respect to department's stand that till the petitioner clears the dues of the erstwhile owners, the charge on the properties cannot be cleared. Second is with respect to the petitioner's application for benefit of amnesty scheme. 10. So far as the first issue is concerned, department's stand is palpably wrong. This is so for the following reasons. Firstly, when the petitioner purchased the properties, no charge of the department was reflected in the revenue records. There is nothing on record to suggest that to defeat the interest of the revenue, erstwhile owners had transferred the properties to the petitioner who happen to be close relatives or that the transfer was without full consideration. The element of transfer being fraudulent is therefore, not established. Secondly, even in terms of section 47, the case of the department is that such transfer was void. As held by this Court in context of Income Tax Act in case of Karsanbhai Gandabhai Patel v. Tax Recovery Officer reported in (2014) 362 ITR 374 (Guj) and Supreme Court in case of Tax Recovery Officer v. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade (decd) reported in 234 ITR 188, the department would have to resort to filing Civil Suit and cannot unilaterally declare such transfer as void. This principle was followed by this Court in case of Jayesh Vadilal Parekh v. Commercial Tax Officer and others reported in (2015) 78 VST (Guj) in context of the provisions of VAT Act also. Further the transfer took place in the year 2007. No action was taken by the department for nearly 10 years. This principle was followed by this Court in case of Jayesh Vadilal Parekh v. Commercial Tax Officer and others reported in (2015) 78 VST (Guj) in context of the provisions of VAT Act also. Further the transfer took place in the year 2007. No action was taken by the department for nearly 10 years. It was only when the petitioner asked for benefit of amnesty scheme the said view was taken. Even on ground of delay, laches and inaction, the department cannot be allowed to open such old issues. 11. Coming to the question of benefit of amnesty scheme, we do not think the petitioner has made out a case for direction for such purpose. We may recall the scheme of amnesty required the dealer desirous of taking benefit of amnesty scheme to apply latest by 31.3.2017. There has been no extension of this time limit thereafter. Along with the application, the dealer would have to deposit with the Government revenue, full principal tax dues upon which if the offer is accepted, the interest and penalty would be waived. In the present case, the petitioner did apply before the last date, nevertheless, his offer was conditional. The petitioner did not make payment of tax dues. He only indicated that he has a buyer and who also would pay the tax dues on a condition that department will thereafter lift the attachment on the properties. This was not an unconditional application for benefit of amnesty scheme. The amnesty scheme would be in the nature of an invitation by the Government and applying dealer would be making an offer. Such offer had to be unconditional. The petitioner therefore, did not make the application in proper requirement of the scheme. He did not deposit the amount. In any case, his offer that is, buyer would pay the amount provided the Government would agree to lift the attachment was not a valid offer. Whether the attachment would be lifted or not depend on various circumstances and not mere offer to pay the principal tax. The petitioner's request for being granted belated benefit of the amnesty therefore, must fail, despite our conclusion to the first issue regarding the legality of the Government's stand of insisting that either the erstwhile owners or the petitioner must clear the dues of such owners from whom the petitioner had purchased the properties in question. 12. The petitioner's request for being granted belated benefit of the amnesty therefore, must fail, despite our conclusion to the first issue regarding the legality of the Government's stand of insisting that either the erstwhile owners or the petitioner must clear the dues of such owners from whom the petitioner had purchased the properties in question. 12. With these observations, impugned order is set aside. Petition is disposed of.