2014 (8) TMI 706 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records - Detention notice - demanding tax together with compounding fee goods were sent for trial - Held that - The petitioner is willing to pay the tax under protest in terms of Section 67(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the authorities are bound to release the same as the provision of law provides for release of goods on payment of tax - Following decision of Volvo India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 2013 (4) TMI 100 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus sought by the petitioner to quash the Goods Detention Notice and Compounding Notice.
2. Detention of goods by the respondent due to unregistered consignee delivery address and missing TIN/CST No. in the invoice.
3. Petitioner willing to pay tax demanded under protest for release of goods.
4. Request to pursue remedy under Section 54 of TNVAT Act, 2006 for compounding fine.
5. Consideration of claim for release of goods on payment of tax demanded by the authority.
6. Precedents of similar pleas in previous court orders for releasing goods on payment of tax.
7. Direction to respondent to release goods under Section 67 of TNVAT Act, 2006 and proceed with composition fee subject to petitioner's right to contest.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act, sought a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge the Goods Detention Notice and Compounding Notice issued by the respondent. The detention of goods was based on the consignee delivery address being unregistered and the absence of TIN/CST No. in the invoice. The petitioner, although filing for Certiorarified Mandamus, expressed willingness to pay the tax demanded under protest to secure the release of the goods. Additionally, the petitioner requested to address the compounding fine through a revision under Section 54 of the TNVAT Act, 2006.

During the hearing, the Special Government Pleader assured that the authority would consider releasing the goods upon payment of the tax demanded. The court referred to previous cases where goods were released upon payment of tax in similar circumstances. Consequently, the court directed the respondent to release the goods immediately under Section 67 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, upon payment of the determined tax amount. The court also allowed the petitioner to contest the composition fee on its merits and in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the related miscellaneous petition was closed. The judgment emphasized the right of the petitioner to contest the composition fee while directing the immediate release of goods upon payment of the tax demanded, following the provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006.