TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n only after issuing notices to both the respondents and thereby they have also realised a sum of ₹ 42,80,850/-, after adjusting all these amount as per Section 150 of the Customs Act, yet they have incurred additional expenses of ₹ 21,243/- and thus, they were ultimately left with no money from the sale proceeds of E-auction. Hence, since nothing has been left with the petitioner Company as balance money from the proceeds of the auction sale, the respondent is not legally entitled to attach the amount deposited in the third respondent Bank. Even before bringing the goods belonging to the second respondent to sell in E-auction, the petitioner Company had issued notice dated 22.07.2013 under Section 48 of the Customs Act requesting the second respondent to clear the said cargo, otherwise, necessary steps would be taken to dispose of the said goods. Again, finding no reply, the petitioner issued another notice dated 08.08.2013 under Section 48 of the Customs Act for disposal of the said goods and finally, since there was no response from the second respondent, the petitioner Company, with due intimation to the first respondent, sold the goods belonging to the second re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that since the second respondent on receipt of such notice failed to reply for the same, they have issued another notice dated 08.08.2013 under Section 48 of the Customs Act, reminding the second respondent again to collect their cargo. However, the second respondent failed to reply to any of their notices even after receiving several reminders from the petitioner Company. Such details had also been intimated to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Imports) by the petitioner Company vide letter dated 01.03.2014. Finally, since the cargo containing sheet cuttings un-cleared for more than a period of one year, as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the petitioner Company sold the same to M/s.New Golden Steels, for a sum of ₹ 40,77,000/- vide E-auction dated 28.11.2014. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that after holding the E-auction, it is incumbent on the part of the petitioner Company to statutorily comply with the requirement of the Customs Act, for, as per Section 150 of the Customs Act, the petitioner had to pay VAT, customs duty and other handling charges on the said Auction amount. Accordingly, the petitioner Company had also paid th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old the goods in question for a sum of ₹ 40,77,000/- vide E-auction, dated 28.11.2014, therefore, since second respondent failed to pay the arrears of sales tax to the tune of ₹ 1,25,34,480/-, the first respondent is entitled to recover all the proceeds realised by the petitioner Company by applying Section 42(2) of the TNVAT Act. Therefore, as the first respondent has got the right of recovering such arrears in the light of Section 42(2) of the TNVAT Act, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned proceedings of the first respondent. It is further submitted that even as per Section 45(1)(b) of the TNVAT Act, the petitioner cannot escape from the legal duty cast on him, for, a mere reading of the said Section shows that the assessing authority may by way of issuance of notice, require any person to pay to the assessing authority the amount due under this Act on account of the dealer or other person who has become liable to pay any amount due under this Act. In the present case, the petitioner Company, after issuing notices to the second respondent as stated above inviting them to clear the goods lying in the CFS facility, have admitted that the goods sold in E-auction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction, ₹ 9,27,303/- towards the customs duty and ₹ 2,03,850/- towards VAT arising from sale and ₹ 30,20,940/- towards storage, handling and overdue charges. These expenses have been supported by the various documents. Therefore, when the petitioner Company has sold away the goods belonging to the second respondent legally in E-auction only after issuing notices to both the respondents and thereby they have also realised a sum of ₹ 42,80,850/-, after adjusting all these amount as per Section 150 of the Customs Act, yet they have incurred additional expenses of ₹ 21,243/- and thus, they were ultimately left with no money from the sale proceeds of E-auction. Hence, since nothing has been left with the petitioner Company as balance money from the proceeds of the auction sale, the respondent is not legally entitled to attach the amount deposited in the third respondent Bank. 9. Though the learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax) submitted that as per Section 45(1)(b) of the TNVAT Act, the assessing authority may by way of issuance of notice, require any person to pay to the assessing authority the amount due under this Act on account of the dealer or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
