9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 861 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDetention of goods - documents accompanying the goods are found to be defective - Held that - Court has considered similar issue in 2015 (4) TMI 537 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and 2015 (4) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and passed an order directing the respondent to release the goods on payment of one time tax to be decided by the respondent. In the case on hand, tax component has already been decided. - petitioner is directed to pay ₹ 21,511/- without prejudice to its rights and contentions and on such payment, the respondent is directed to release the goods and the petitioner is at liberty to work out its remedy with regard to compounding fee before the Appellate Authority - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
Violation of TNVAT Act, 2006 - Detention of goods, imposition of tax, compounding fee, lack of personal hearing, interference sought through Writ Petition. Analysis: The petitioner, a registered dealer engaged in the business of buying and selling cool drinks, faced detention of goods during a vehicular check due to defective accompanying documents. The respondent alleged violations under Sections 29, 30, 71(5)(a)/71(5)(b), and Rule 4(9) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The petitioner was given the option to compound the offense under Section 72(1)(a) of the Act, with a tax rate of 14.5% amounting to Rs. 21,511, along with a compounding fee totaling Rs. 43,022. The total C fees payable by the petitioner were determined to be Rs. 64,533, leading to the filing of a Writ Petition challenging the impugned notice dated 02.04.2015. The petitioner contended that the impugned order did not cite any failure to pay tax or tax evasion by the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner was not granted a personal hearing to present its case before the order was passed. The counsel for the petitioner argued for interference in this matter. Considering similar cases, the Court had previously directed the release of goods upon payment of a one-time tax. In this instance, the tax amount had already been determined. The judgment by M. Sathyanarayanan J. directed the petitioner to pay the specified tax amount of Rs. 21,511 without prejudice to its rights and contentions. Upon payment, the respondent was instructed to release the goods, allowing the petitioner to address the compounding fee issue before the Appellate Authority. No costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed as a result.
|
