Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2017 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 605 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxCFS - Validity of Form U notice issued under Rule 9(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - whether petitioner could be teated as Garnishee or not? - Held that: - Admittedly, the petitioner is not a garnishee as they are only CFS duly licensed by the Customs Department. The amount, which they have recovered by sale of the goods is the amount which is lawfully due to them and the sale proceeds of the steel did not cover the entire dues and it is stated that some more amount is recoverable from the third respondent. Thus, the petitioner is not required to pay any monies to the third respondent, but the case is vice versa. Identical issue arose for consideration before this Court in the case of Tvl.Sical Multimodal and Rail Transport Ltd., v. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Cholavaram Assessment Circle and others [2015 (11) TMI 689 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein the The correctness of such notice was challenged in the writ petition and the writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to refund the amount, which was recovered by the Commercial Taxes Department by attaching the bank account of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be treated as a garnishee of the third respondent and the impugned Form U notice is wholly without jurisdiction - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|