2015 (10) TMI 2471 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of goods - TNVAT - details and value of returned goods were also declared in Form JJ - when the goods were moving to the supplier, the 1st respondent detained the goods vide impugned proceedings for the reason that the goods were transported with defective and invalid documents - the representative of the petitioner met the 1st respondent and produced all the required documents, even then the no orders came to be passed. - Held that - Since the 1st respondent has not passed any orders even after production of required documents by the representative of the petitioner and in view of the above submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), the 1st respondent is directed to pass necessary orders on the basis of the documents produced before him in support of the transportation, within a period of one week from today. - With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to detention notice for goods and release of goods by the 1st respondent.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged the proceedings of the 1st respondent regarding the detention of goods and sought the release of Sheep Wet Blue returned by the petitioner to its supplier. The petitioner, a registered dealer under TNVAT Act and CST Act, deals in leather goods and garments for export. The goods in question were supplied by M/s ABCO Leathers Pvt. Limited, accompanied by proper documents, including a delivery challan and invoice. A portion of the goods was found defective and returned to the supplier with proper documentation. However, the 1st respondent detained the goods during transportation, alleging defective and invalid documents. The petitioner contended that the detention was unjustified as the goods were accompanied by necessary documents, and being an export-oriented unit, there should be no tax liability.

The petitioner argued that the detention by the 1st respondent was contrary to law and unjustified when proper documents were provided. The Check Post Authority alleged that the transportation lacked proper documents, but the petitioner's representative met the 1st respondent, provided all required documents, yet no orders were passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the transportation was legitimate and supported by appropriate documentation.

The Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) suggested that the 1st respondent should be directed to pass orders promptly based on the documents presented by the petitioner. Consequently, the court directed the 1st respondent to issue necessary orders within a week based on the documents provided by the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with this directive, and no costs were awarded.