2016 (9) TMI 1028

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ASG with Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra, Mr. M. Dwivedi and Mr. Sham Walve for the respondent ORDER P. C. 1) These matters have been placed today in furtherance of our earlier order dated 22nd August, 2016. 2) We have noticed a disturbing fact and which we must immediately set out before the further directions that we propose to issue. At today's hearing, Mr. Anil Singh learned Additional Solicitor General tenders a draft notice of motion and moved by the original respondent no. 1, namely, the Commissioner of Service Tax - V, Mumbai Commissionerate. In this notice of motion, the two prayers and which are pressed read thus:- "(a) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to recall its order dated 22-08....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 22nd August, 2016 records that the Service Tax Commissionerate has accepted the bid of M/s. SGI Commex Limited being the highest bid and it has to take further steps. Our attention is invited to the order dated 22nd August, 2016 to submit that the Service Tax Commissioner sought leave of this court to finalise and confirm the auction in favour of M/s. SGI Commex Limited. However, the counsel submits that till date a written confirmation of the sale or acceptance of the highest bid has not been communicated. Therefore, beyond a sum of Rs. 1 crore, the balance sum or amount, which is in Indian rupees 27.39 crores (4.1 Million USD) could not be deposited with the Service Tax Commissionerate. The counsel, therefore, submits that it is not for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....de by the Service Tax Commissioner seeking to confirm the sale without informing the court that a written communication communicating acceptance of the offer has to be released and issued to the bidder. Finally and more importantly that the sale must be concluded within 21 days from the date of such communication was also not a statement and factually made before this court. Pertinently, there is a limit prescribed and that there is a Draft Manual has also not been stated ever before this court. 8) Since everything is now emerging during the course of hearing and the auction purchaser/highest bidder desiring time in addition to what was understood and stipulated by it and seeking leave to file an affidavit to that effect, we place this m....