TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nch of this Court. The said order reads thus:- "1] The Petitioner is the secured creditor and has received a letter dated 14.03.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax informing that on account of sales tax dues there is a lien on the property in favour of the State Government. 2] This Bench has resolved the issue as per the Judgment dated 13th December 2019 passed in Writ Petition 1039 of 2017 pari passu. It was held that the dues of a secured debtor rank above the dues of the State Government under the Maharashtra Sales Tax or a Value Added Tax. 3] Thus, the Petition is disposed of quashing the letter dated 14.03.2018. 4] Needless to state that if there is any surplus amount available after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epartment. 4. We find from the letter/notice dated 16th March 2021 as addressed by the Sales Tax Department that merely a request was made by the Sales Tax Department to the Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company to pay money to Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra State, Mumbai which may become due, by disposal of assets/property of the dealer. A copy of the said letter/notice was also forwarded to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. The second such letter was also in the nature of Garnishee notice dated 9th April 2021 which inter alia recorded as under :- " WHEREAS, a sum of 1489862/- is due from M/s.TAURUSAUTO DEAL PVT. LTD. who is/are a dealer/s liable to pay tax under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, tax identificatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 3 would amount to breach of the order dated 10 January 2020 (supra) passed by the Division Bench, is totally untenable. This for the reason that such a communication did not in any manner obstruct the sale of the property by the petitioners to realise its dues by exercising its first charge as per the orders dated 10 January 2020 passed by the Division Bench. Secondly, the petitioners in alleging breach have totally overlooked that petitioner No. 3 taking the benefit of the order dated 10 January 2020 had already proceeded to issue an auction proclamation on 11 February 2021 under which petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had submitted their bids which came to be considered by petitioner No. 3. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were declared to be successful ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present contempt petition are completely oblivious to the consideration of all these materials in the judgment rendered by this Court on Writ Petition No. 4365 of 2023 dated 12 July 2023 filed by the petitioners, on all issues in regard to implications of the order dated 10 January 2020 being considered by this Court. The Court considering the position in law has held that apart from recognizing the first charge of petitioner No. 3, the charge of the Sales Tax Department on the mortgage property had continued to operate even on transfer of the said property in the hands of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 as auction purchasers, as it was on the very terms and conditions of "as is where is basis", "as is what is basis" and "whatever is there is ....