2015 (7) TMI 505 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of the goods - non-movement of goods in a particular route - Section 67(5) of the TNVAT Act - Held that - even if it is presumed that the vehicles had taken a diversified route i.e., 5 kilometres from the regular route, the Additional Government Pleader for the respondent has miserably failed to place before this Court any provision to justify the passing of the goods detention notices impugned herein. Therefore, when there is no provision, as argued by the learned Additional Government Pleader, placed before this Court that taking a diversified route from the regular route, the respondent is entitled to intercept the vehicles, this Court is not able to find any merit either in the goods detention notice - hence, they are liable to be set aside - writ petition allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging goods detention and compounding notices under TNVAT Act, 2006.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the legality of goods detention notices issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, arguing that the goods were accompanied by proper documents as required by the TNVAT Act. The petitioner, a registered dealer in edible oil, transported goods with sale bills but faced detention due to alleged route deviations. The petitioner maintained that the vehicles followed the correct route and that the respondent's allegations were factually incorrect. The petitioner emphasized that the TNVAT Act does not mandate specific routes for goods transportation and that detaining goods with proper documents was unjustified.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the check post officer's jurisdiction is limited to verifying accompanying documents, not detaining goods. Even if doubts existed, the assessing officer should handle verification during assessment, not through detention. The petitioner stressed that detaining goods based on flimsy reasons would harm business and the local economy. Additionally, the counsel contended that compounding proceedings should be initiated by the regular assessing officer, not the check post officer, and compounding should be optional for the petitioner.

On the other hand, the respondent argued that the petitioner deviated from the regular route, justifying goods detention under TNVAT Act sections. The respondent offered the petitioner an opportunity to compound the alleged offense, indicating no interference was warranted with the notices issued.

The Court found no merit in the respondent's arguments. The impugned goods detention notices lacked justification as the goods were accompanied by proper sale bills as required by the TNVAT Act. The Court noted that the respondent failed to prove any route deviation or legal basis for detention. Consequently, the Court set aside the goods detention and compounding notices, directing the immediate release of goods and vehicles to the petitioner. The writ petitions were allowed, and the case was closed without costs.