2015 (8) TMI 251 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of goods - goods were not accompanied with e-Transit pass - Held that - reason given by the 1st respondent appears to be correct for detention of the goods viz., the goods were not accompanied with e-Transit pass, which has been generated only on 17.06.2015 at about 09 0 clock, in view of the fact that this petitioner s goods have moved with invoice dated 13.6.2015 mentioning all the particulars, 1st respondent in all fairness ought not to have detained the goods and vehicle, in view of the Circular No.33/2014Q4/7752/2014 dated 17.07.2014 of the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai. - 1st respondent is directed to release the goods along with the vehicle on production of a copy of this order. If the 1st respondent is of the view that the goods escaped the assessment, it is open to him to convey the same to the Assessing Officer by way of a communication for passing appropriate orders - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of goods for moving without transit pass.
2. Jurisdiction of the 1st respondent in detaining the goods.
3. Validity of detaining goods without necessary documents.
4. Interpretation of relevant government order in detaining goods.
5. Direction for release of goods and vehicle.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged the detention of goods by the 1st respondent due to the absence of a transit pass for plastic granules under the TNVAT Act. The petitioner, a limited company engaged in plastic moulding goods, argued that it had the necessary statutory registrations and had followed proper procedures during transit from Ahmedabad to Pondicherry. The petitioner contended that the goods were accompanied by required documents, including Form KK and invoices, and should not have been detained solely based on the absence of a transit pass.

2. The petitioner asserted that the 1st respondent lacked jurisdiction to detain the goods, as they were not the Assessing Officer. The petitioner highlighted that other check posts had cleared the goods without issue, emphasizing that the accompanying documents were in order. The petitioner sought the release of the goods on the grounds that all necessary documents were present during transit.

3. The Additional Government Pleader argued that an e-Transit pass was generated after the goods were detained, indicating a lack of necessary documents during transit. However, the court noted that the invoice clearly identified the petitioner and seller details, suggesting compliance with relevant regulations. The court found that while the e-Transit pass was generated late, the detention based solely on this ground was unjustified, especially considering the Circular No.33/2014Q4/7752/2014, which emphasized compliance with invoice requirements.

4. The court referred to the Circular, which highlighted a case involving the interception of goods accompanied by a valid invoice. The Circular clarified that failure to file monthly returns did not constitute an offense related to the movement of goods, emphasizing that composition of offenses was only applicable in specific tax evasion scenarios. The court directed the 1st respondent to release the goods and vehicle upon production of the court's order, allowing for further assessment by the Assessing Officer if necessary.

5. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order, allowing the writ petition and directing the release of the goods without imposing any costs. The judgment emphasized adherence to proper procedures and documentation during the movement of goods, ensuring that detentions are justified based on valid legal grounds.