2014 (9) TMI 456 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of goods - vehicle carrying the goods did not carry the documents required under Section 67 of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 - offence in terms of Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 - Held that - writ petitions are disposed of and the petitioner is at liberty to pay the tax of ₹ 2,29,387/- and ₹ 2,28,686/- respectively and on such payment, the goods detained shall be released forthwith. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the penalty proceedings by filing revision before the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of goods at Hosur Check Post due to lack of required documents under Section 67 of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006.
2. Alleged offense under Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006.
3. Petitioner's request to pay the tax amount and challenge the penalty.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The petitioner's two crown reach trucks equipment were detained at Hosur Check Post -OUT due to the absence of necessary documents as mandated by Section 67 of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006. The detention led to the issuance of two Goods Detention Notices dated 15.07.2014. The petitioner, in response, submitted a detailed representation on 16.07.2014. However, the respondent proceeded to pass two impugned orders, directing the petitioner to compound the alleged offense under the Act.

Issue 2: The petitioner challenged the impugned orders by filing writ petitions before the court. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel expressed willingness to pay the tax amounting to Rs. 2,29,387/- and Rs. 2,28,686/- as raised in the notices. The petitioner sought permission to contest the imposition of penalties by initiating a revision process before the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner.

Issue 3: After hearing the arguments from both parties, the court disposed of the writ petitions by allowing the petitioner to pay the specified tax amounts. Upon such payment, the detained goods were ordered to be released immediately. Additionally, the petitioner was granted the liberty to challenge the penalty proceedings by filing a revision before the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner. The judgment concluded without imposing any costs on the petitioner, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.