2016 (10) TMI 1095 - HC - Service Tax

Auction of aircraft - nomination - whether it is agreeable to the involvement of an auctioneer nominated by respondent No. 3? - fixation of the reserve price sufficiently in advance - Held that - it is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. This arrangement nor any disclosure made in advance in this case shall be treated as precedent in future cases. None can rely on this order and the arrangement made in future auctions and sale of goods by public auctioneers or agencies like MSTC. The procedures incorporated in the manual are not given a go-bye nor any of the provisions of that manual are interpreted by this order - It is purely to expedite the process so that the aircraft is shifted from the site that we have proposed this arrangement and parties have accepted it on that basis - the aircraft to be auctioned and sold as expeditiously as possible.

Summary

Issues:
1. Nomination of an auctioneer for conducting the auction of goods.
2. Dispute resolution regarding the involvement of a specific agency for auctioning the goods.
3. Disclosure of necessary details leading to the fixation of the reserve price.
4. Expedited auction process for the sale of aircraft.

Analysis:
1. The proceedings were initiated to determine if the respondent was agreeable to the involvement of an auctioneer nominated by another party. The respondent was required to nominate only the Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Limited (MSTC Ltd.) for auctioning the goods, as per departmental instructions and Circular No. 11 of 2012.

2. The parties discussed a practicable solution where bids and offers brought by the third respondent would be considered by the government-nominated agency, MSTC. The third respondent agreed to this solution, provided sufficient time was given for disclosing the valuation report and reserve price of the subject aircrafts to allow interested parties to submit their bids and offers.

3. The court accepted the arrangement proposed by the parties, emphasizing that it was specific to the case at hand and should not be considered a precedent for future cases. The purpose of the arrangement was to expedite the process of auctioning the aircraft to ensure a timely sale, with the expectation that the auction would be completed by a specified date.

4. In conclusion, the judgment focused on resolving the dispute regarding the involvement of an auctioneer, ensuring the disclosure of relevant details for setting the reserve price, and expediting the auction process for the sale of the aircraft. The parties agreed to the proposed arrangement to facilitate the auction and sale of the goods within a specified timeline.