9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... monies to the third respondent, but the case is vice versa. Identical issue arose for consideration before this Court in the case of Tvl.Sical Multimodal and Rail Transport Ltd., v. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Cholavaram Assessment Circle and others [2015 (11) TMI 689 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein the 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. The petitioner cannot be treated as a garnishee of the third respondent and the impugned Form U notice is wholly without jurisdiction - petition allowed - decided in favor of petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed procedure, the goods were brought for sale by E-auction and the sale proceedings were appropriated by the petitioner towards part of the dues payable by the third respondent to the petitioner for having kept the cargo in their CFS. 4. For the balance money, the petitioner is proceeding against the third respondent for recovery by way of independent proceedings. In the interregnum, the Commercial Taxes Department viz., Assessing Officer of the third respondent, who is the second respondent herein has issued the impugned notice. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a garnishee as they are only CFS duly licensed by the Customs Department. The amount, which they have recovered by sale of the goods is the amount which is lawfully due to them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perative portion of the order passed in W.P.No.17145 of 2015, dated 15.07.2015 (referred supra). 9.Though the learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax) submitted that as per Section 45(1)(b) of the TNVAT Act, the assessig authority may by way of issuance of notice, required 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 submission, for, in the present case, even though the petitioner sold the goods belonging to the section respondent in E-auction on 28.11.2014 and thereby realised a sum of ₹ 40,77,000/-, yet they incurred with additional expensed of ₹ 21,243 /- after m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the first respondent to proceed against the second respondent for recovery of the arrears towards the sales tax in accordance with law. In fine, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellanous petitions are closed. 7. In the light of the above, the petitioner cannot be treated as a garnishee of the third respondent and the impugned Form U notice is wholly without jurisdiction. For the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed and respondents 1 2 are directed to refund the entire amount of ₹ 50,06,823/-, which has been recovered from the petitioner by attaching their bank account and such refund shall be effected within a period of 15 days from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
