9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave refused the notice which was sent to them. 2. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the Form U notice issued under Rule 9(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short TNVAT Act ) Rules, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,25,34,480/- from the petitioner being the amount payable by the third respondent towards sales tax dues to the Commercial Taxes Department. 3. The petitioner is a Container Freight Station (in short CFS ) licensed by the Customs Department. The third respondent imported steel and the same were stored in the petitioner s CFS. The third respondent failed to clear the goods by paying appropriate customs duty and the goods were left to lie within the CFS. In terms of the provisions under the Customs Act and rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcle is the second respondent herein. In the said writ petition, the second respondent was M/s.Ayya Steels, the third respondent herein. In the said case also, similar Form U notice was issued by the second respondent herein to the petitioner therein. 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. Before me, identical submission has been made by the learned Additional Government Pleader by referring to Section 45(1)(b) of the TNVAT Act. This submission was rejected in the case of Tvl.Sical Multimodal and Rail Transport Ltd (supra). 6. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent 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 petition Company, with due intimation to the first respondent, sold the goods belonging to the second respondent for a sum of Rs. 40,77,000/- vide E-auction dated 28.11.2014, therefore, I do not find any irregularity in selling the goods as they admittedly issued notices to both the respondents before selling the goods. 11. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
