2016 (1) TMI 1156 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Purchase return - Detention of goods - Since the 2nd respondent, the assessing authority is empowered to proceed in the manner known to law, if he finds that the petitioner has committed any violation of the rules and regulations and since the 1st respondent is not empowered to impose and collect the compounding fee, the impugned order dated 14.10.2015 issued by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside - Petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to proceedings of 1st respondent dated 14.10.2015; Jurisdiction of 1st respondent to pass order; Imposition of compounding fee for release of goods.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer in leather goods and garments, challenged the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 14.10.2015. The petitioner had received defective goods from a supplier and returned them for replacement. Subsequently, a Goods Detention Notice was issued by the 1st respondent. The petitioner filed a writ petition which was disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass necessary orders based on the documents provided. Despite submitting required documents, the goods were not released, leading to another writ petition challenging the detention notice and seeking release of the goods without any payment. The court, after considering submissions from both sides, directed the 1st respondent to release the goods to the petitioner, allowing the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action if any violation was found.

The petitioner contended that the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to pass the order and that imposing a compounding fee for release of goods was contrary to law. The court, after considering the arguments, found that the 1st respondent was not empowered to collect the compounding fee and set aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2015. The court emphasized that the 2nd respondent, as the assessing authority, could proceed in accordance with the law if any violation was detected, and it was not within the 1st respondent's authority to impose and collect the compounding fee. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, allowing the 2nd respondent to take necessary assessment actions against the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.