2015 (9) TMI 580 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of Goods Non availability of E-Transit passes Respondent by impugned order detained goods of petitioner on transit on grounds that goods were not accompanied with E-Transit passes and amount mentioned in Invoices differ from amount mentioned in K.K.Forms It was alleged by petitioner that accompanied with KK Forms and sale invoices, mentioning destination with Tax Identification Number and hence, first respondent ought not to have interfered with transit of goods Held that - Section 70(1)(b) of TNVAT Act, r/w. Rule 15(17)(bb) of TNVAT Rules, shows that owner of goods vehicle, shall deliver within prescribed period, transit pass to officer in charge of last check post or barrier, before exit of goods vehicle from State In view of above, petitioner s vehicles need not carry E-Transit pass in middle of transit Therefore, considering fact that when subject vehicles, have accompanied with KK Forms, Bill of Entry and Sale Bill of Seller in Bombay against C Forms, first respondent could have released vehicles, along with goods, after verifying above documents Therefore impugned orders hereby set aside and directs to release goods Decided in favour of Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging detention order of goods due to missing E-Transit passes and discrepancies in invoice amounts.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the detention order of goods due to missing E-Transit passes and discrepancies in invoice amounts. The petitioner contended that the goods were ordered from a registered dealer in Maharashtra and were accompanied by necessary documents like KK Forms, Bill of Entry, and sale invoices. The petitioner argued that as the transaction was inter-state, no tax should be levied under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. However, the goods were detained by the first respondent on the grounds of discrepancies in the value of goods, missing transit pass, and the petitioner not being a registered dealer in Tamil Nadu.

The petitioner further argued that the first respondent was not the appropriate authority to detain the goods, citing a previous court order. The petitioner claimed that demanding One Time Tax for release would be unjust as recovering the amount would be challenging since the petitioner was not based in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner maintained that the goods were accompanied by all necessary documents, including E-Transit passes, at the time of movement.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that discrepancies in amounts on KK Forms and invoices raised suspicions of tax evasion, justifying the detention of goods. The respondents suggested that the petitioner should pay One Time Tax for the release of goods and contest the matter as per the law.

After hearing both parties, the court observed that the goods were accompanied by required documents like KK Forms, Bill of Entry, and sale invoices, which should have led to the release of goods by the first respondent. The court directed the first respondent to release the goods and advised him to initiate proceedings against the owner of the vehicles if necessary, following the law. The court disposed of the writ petitions with no costs, closing all connected miscellaneous petitions.