2014 (6) TMI 872 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of goods - Detention of ground that subject place is not a registered place and that interstate transaction was not reflected in the return and that the petitioner has not paid any tax till date - Held that - Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent is prepared to release the goods if the petitioner pays a sum of ₹ 30,000 in each petitions as a one time payment. - without going into the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned in these writ petitions, the respondent is directed to release the goods detained, to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of ₹ 30,000/(approximately) in each petitions. It is made clear that the petitioner Firm has to subject themselves to the adjudication proceedings that may be initiated by the respondents. It is also open to the petitioner to send his objection to the respondent for adjudication proceedings that may be initiated by the respondents, if required. It is made clear that the tax amount to be paid by the petitioner will be treated as advance tax. - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Detention of goods for alleged tax non-payment and lack of proper documentation.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in the sale of Iron and Steel, challenged the detention of goods by the respondent on the grounds of the place not being registered and interstate transaction details not reflected in the return. The petitioner claimed the impugned goods were accompanied by the necessary documents. The petitioner's counsel argued that the goods were transported with proper documents as required by the Act, questioning the detention by the respondents.

The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, offered to release the goods upon payment of approximately Rs. 30,000 in each petition as a one-time payment. The court, without delving into the validity of the impugned order, directed the immediate release of the detained goods to the petitioner on the condition of payment. The petitioner was instructed to subject themselves to any adjudication proceedings initiated by the respondents and could raise objections as needed. The tax amount paid by the petitioner was to be considered as advance tax, and the writ petition was disposed of without costs.

This judgment highlights the resolution of the dispute regarding the detention of goods by the respondent, with the court ordering the release of goods upon payment by the petitioner. The decision emphasizes compliance with adjudication proceedings and treating the tax payment as advance tax, providing clarity on the resolution of the matter without imposing any costs.