2014 (8) TMI 334 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of goods - discrepancies in the stock - Assessee contends that they are not the owners of the goods but are transporter only - Held that - without going into the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned in this writ petition, the respondents are directed to release the goods detained, to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of ₹ 2,38,590/- as contemplated under the Act. It is made clear that the petitioner has to subject himself to the adjudication proceedings that may be initiated by the respondents. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to goods detention notice under TNVAT Act, 2006 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Validity of detention notice based on alleged discrepancies in stock of goods.
Petitioner's contention of being only a transporter, not the owner of goods.
Offer to compound the offence by paying a specified amount.
Jurisdictional aspect of tax payment under CST.
Direction to release goods on payment of tax by petitioner.

Analysis:

The petitioner, a registered dealer under TNVAT Act, 2006 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, challenged a goods detention notice issued by the respondents. The petitioner, engaged in the transport business, claimed not to be the owner but merely the transporter of the goods. Alleged discrepancies in stock during an inspection led to the detention of goods, with an option provided to compound the offence by paying a specific amount. The petitioner argued that they possessed valid documents and thus the detention notice was legally unsustainable.

The petitioner's counsel contended that the goods were stored with proper delivery notes and documents as required by law, questioning the validity of the detention by the respondents. It was argued that the tax payment under CST falls within the jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu, and the petitioner was willing to pay the entire tax amount without prejudice to their right to seek revision. The court considered the submissions of both parties, including the Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents.

Referring to a previous case, the court directed the release of goods upon the petitioner paying the specified tax amount under protest. Without delving into the correctness of the impugned order, the court ordered the immediate release of the detained goods upon payment of Rs. 2,38,590 as per the Act. The petitioner was instructed to comply with any adjudication proceedings initiated by the respondents. As a result, the writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.