TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 689
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Bank not to release the bank account of the petitioner Company without prior intimation to their office. 2. It is the claim of the petitioner Company that the petitioner Company, having specialization in Container Freight Services (CFS) for their customers, obtained necessary permissions for CFS facilities vide Public Notice 172/1997, dated 15.10.1997, from the office of the Commissioner of Customs, Government of India. It is their further claim that one M/s.Ayya Steels, the second respondent herein, had imported certain goods in the nature of sheet cuttings of various sizes and they were issued with a Bill of Lading dated 10.05.2013 by their carrier / Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. Though the goods in question reached the Chennai ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner Company sold the same to M/s.New Golden Steels, for a sum of Rs. 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 the said amount in the following breakups; Particulars Amount (Rs.) Sale Proceeds from Auction 42,80,850 Less: VAT on the Sale 2,03,850 40,77,000 E-Auction Expenses 1,50,000 Customs Duty Paid 9,27,303 Storage an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Additional Government Pleader (Tax) appearing for the first respondent submitted that it is too late for the petitioner Company to say that the goods sold by them in E-auction belonged to the second respondent. The petitioner Company, after issuing notices dated 22.07.2013 and 08.08.2013 to the second respondent calling upon them to clear the goods, have sold the goods in question for a sum of Rs. 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 Rs. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to the following effect: "150. Procedure for sale of goods and application of sale proceeds. (1) Where any goods not being confiscated goods are to be sold under any provisions of this Act, they shall, after notice to the owner thereof, be sold by public auction or by tender or with the consent of the owner in any other manner. (2) The proceeds of any such sale shall be applied- (a) firstly to the payment of the expenses of the sale, (b) next to the payment of the freight and other charges, if any, payable in respect of the goods sold, to the carrier, if notice of such charges has been given to the person having custody of the goods, (c) next to the payment of the duty, if any, on the goods sold, (d) next to the payment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hus, 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 other person who has become liable to pay any amount due under this Act, I do not find merit in the said submission, for, in the present case, even though the petit....