1993 (8) TMI 271 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding possession and submission of records by carriers of goods vehicles, legality of detaining goods for tax evasion, authority to demand tax due from carriers, applicability of previous court decisions on current legal provisions.

Analysis:
The case involved a petitioner, a transport company, whose goods consignment was detained by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer for not carrying the required documents during transport. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the release of the goods and challenging the legality of the detention. The respondent issued notices to the petitioner regarding the payment of a sum for the release of the goods, leading to the court proceedings.

The main contention raised by the petitioner was that penal consequences for the violation should be imposed on the consignor rather than the carrier. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate for Taxes, argued that it was within their jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the carrier for violations and tax evasion as per the relevant statutory provisions.

The court analyzed the statutory provisions under sections 43, 44, 45, 42, and 46 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. These sections outlined the obligations of carriers to carry and submit specific documents, the penalties for non-compliance, the authority to detain goods for tax evasion, and the composition of offenses. The court noted that carriers could face penal consequences for not carrying the required documents as per section 45(4)(a) of the Act.

The court highlighted the authority of the competent authority to demand tax due from carriers or require them to furnish security on behalf of the person liable to pay the tax. It emphasized that the revenue authority could simultaneously prosecute the carrier, compound the offense, and demand the tax involved in the transportation of goods.

Regarding the petitioner's reliance on previous court decisions, the court noted that amendments to the relevant statutory provisions had changed the legal landscape, allowing the department to demand tax due from carriers or other involved parties. As a result, the previous court decisions cited by the petitioner were deemed irrelevant in the current scenario.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition and the related application, ruling that the notices issued to the petitioner were in line with the provisions of the Act. The court discharged the rule nisi and decided that there would be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.