2015 (6) TMI 542 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of goods - Held that - Petitioner is directed to pay the tax as one time payment under protest as a condition precedent for release of the goods in question, in terms of Section 67(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and on such payment of the one time tax in terms of Section 67(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, the respondent shall release the goods forthwith to the petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner has to face the adjudication proceedings that may be initiated by the respondent. - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to impugned goods detention show cause notice for composition of offence.
2. Authority of law to detain goods without evasion of sales tax under Section 67(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act.
3. Inter-State sales transaction and correct levy of tax for CST sales.
4. Detention of goods without hearing the transporter.
5. Precedent set by a previous court order in a similar case.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenges the impugned goods detention show cause notice for composition of offence issued by the respondent. The petitioner argues that the respondent cannot detain the goods without authority of law, especially when the goods were moved from one state to another with all necessary documents, including proper registration numbers and central sales tax details. The petitioner asserts that there is no evasion of sales tax under Section 67(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, and therefore, the impugned notice should be set aside.

2. The petitioner, a dealer in engineering lab products, has been regularly submitting monthly returns and conducting business in accordance with the law. The goods in question were purchased for an inter-State sales transaction, correctly levying 2% tax for CST sales. The petitioner received a purchase order from an educational institution in another state, and the transaction was legitimate. Despite the absence of the delivery site address on the invoice, the goods were moved with the intention to fulfill the order. The respondent detained the goods without hearing the transporter, even though there was no evidence of tax evasion. The petitioner cites a previous court order in a similar case to support their argument for interference with the impugned notice.

3. The Additional Government Pleader representing the respondent takes notice of the case. The court, considering the precedent set by a previous order in a similar circumstance, directs the petitioner to pay the tax as a one-time payment under protest for the release of the goods. The petitioner is required to face adjudication proceedings that may be initiated by the respondent. Upon payment of the one-time tax, the respondent is obligated to release the goods to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions, and the related miscellaneous petition is closed without any costs incurred.