1972 (7) TMI 84 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged offence under section 45(2)(d) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Petitioner's request for a refund of the amount paid under protest.
3. Interpretation of section 44 of the Act regarding the requirement of a bill of sale or delivery note during transit.
4. Consideration of whether the goods were intended for sale or purchase at the time of transit.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner received a notice for an alleged offence under section 45(2)(d) of the Act and was given the option to compound the offence by paying a sum of Rs. 1,000. The petitioner paid the amount under protest to retrieve his detained goods and subsequently filed a petition seeking a refund of the sum collected.

2. The petitioner, a registered dealer under relevant tax acts, was transporting goods from his factory to his godown when the check post officer detained the goods for lack of a delivery note. The petitioner contended that the goods were not intended for sale at the time of transit, and he had not contravened any provision of the law. The court verified the petitioner's claim and found merit in his contention that no offence under section 44 of the Act had been committed.

3. The court analyzed the requirements of section 44 of the Act, emphasizing that the provision pertains to goods intended for sale or purchase during transit. It was observed that the obligation to carry a bill of sale or delivery note arises when goods are in transit pursuant to a sale or purchase agreement. In the absence of such intention for sale or purchase at the time of transit, the provision may not apply, as was the case with the petitioner's situation.

4. The court directed the petitioner to pursue a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 32 of the Act, allowing for a proper review of the matter. The revision petition was to be filed within two weeks, and the Deputy Commissioner was instructed to handle the matter promptly, ensuring a resolution within two months. Consequently, the writ petition seeking a refund was dismissed, with the petitioner instructed to follow the prescribed revision process for further consideration.