2016 (1) TMI 50 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of goods - Compounding fees - Held that - Goods were accompanied by form JJ describing the nature of movement is for processing by the supplier and the delivery challan also contained the reason for the movement namely return of goods. The quantity of the goods and the approximate value of the goods and the nature of goods were clearly mentioned in the form JJ and the delivery challan. The address of the consignor and the address of the consignee was also clearly mentioned in the form JJ and the delivery challan and since, the goods are supported by form JJ.No.737 dated 30.09.2015 along with Delivery Challan No.008 dated 30.09.2015 and the goods were returned back to the seller only for the purpose of processing, the petitioner has not committed any violation as stated by the first respondent. - since the second respondent being the Assessing Authority also made as a party here, it is always open to the second respondent to take appropriate action against the petitioner, if any violation found out and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. When such being position, there is no justifiable reason for detaining the goods in the check post. Hence, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the first respondent to release the goods forth with. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Quashing of Goods Detention Notice and release of goods without payment of tax or compounding fee.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, returned defective goods to the supplier, which led to the issuance of a Goods Detention Notice. Despite a previous court order directing the first respondent to review the documents and release the goods, a subsequent notice was issued. The petitioner argued that the goods were returned for processing, and all necessary details were provided in the accompanying documents. The court agreed that there was no violation and directed the first respondent to release the goods immediately.

The court emphasized that the Assessing Authority (second respondent) could take action if any violation was found, but there was no justification for detaining the goods at the check post. Therefore, the court ordered the immediate release of the goods to the petitioner. The judgment concluded by allowing the second respondent to proceed legally if any violations were discovered, without imposing any costs on the petitioner.

This judgment highlights the importance of proper documentation and adherence to regulations in the context of goods transportation and tax compliance. It underscores the role of the court in ensuring fair treatment and timely resolution of disputes related to tax matters and goods movement.