2013 (4) TMI 49 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of goods - assessee seeking release the goods detained - Held that - As the petitioner is willing to pay the tax demanded under protest and seeks release of the goods in terms of Section 67(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 which provides for release of goods on payment of appropriate tax as the respondent is directed to release the goods forthwith as and when the petitioner pays the tax as demanded.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of goods without quantifying tax amount.
2. Petitioner's request for release of goods under Section 67(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
3. Consideration of compounding fee by the authority.
4. Previous court order for releasing goods on payment of tax.
5. Directing the respondent to release goods upon payment of tax and addressing the compounding fee issue.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition was filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge the detention order of goods by the respondent. The goods were detained under proceedings dated 1.1.2013 without quantifying the tax amount. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay the tax demanded under protest and requested the release of goods under Section 67(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Additionally, the petitioner sought the opportunity to contest the compounding fee before the relevant authority.

During the hearing, the Government Advocate (Tax) stated that the authority would review the request for releasing goods under Section 67 of the Act and address the compounding fee as per Section 72 of the Act. Referring to a previous court order in a similar case, where goods were released upon tax payment, the court directed the respondent to release the goods immediately upon the petitioner's payment of the demanded tax under protest. The court also instructed the respondent to proceed with the compounding fee issue, allowing the petitioner to contest it on merits and in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs, with the court ordering the release of goods upon payment of tax as demanded by the petitioner under Section 67 of the Act. The respondent was directed to address the compounding fee matter, giving the petitioner the right to challenge it on merits and in compliance with legal procedures.