2017 (2) TMI 1519 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of goods - the contention of the petitioner is that the transaction was genuine and, thus, the subject goods ought not to have been detained - HELD THAT - Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the fact, that the petitioner offers to pay one time tax, the subjects goods are directed to be released. Consequently, upon payment of one time tax, by the petitioner, equivalent to the sum of Rs.2,98,013/-, the respondent will, forthwith, release the subject goods to the petitioner. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to goods detention notice

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a goods detention notice dated 07.02.2017, intended for the supply of boiler components to NTPC Limited, North Karanpura STPP, Tandwa, Chatra, Jharkhand. The invoices for the goods were generated on 31.12.2016 and 30.01.2017 but were moved only on 07.02.2017, leading to the detention of the goods by the respondent. The petitioner cited reasons for the delay, including a breakdown of the transport vehicle, the Pongal festival, and unavailability of a regular lorry for transportation. The petitioner contended that the transaction was genuine, and thus, the goods should not have been detained.

Resolution:
The petitioner, in a bid to expedite the release of the goods, expressed willingness to pay a one-time tax without prejudice to its rights and contentions. The respondent, represented by Mr. Venkatesh, agreed that upon payment of the one-time tax by the petitioner amounting to Rs.2,98,013/-, the subject goods would be released. The court, considering the circumstances and the petitioner's offer, directed the release of the goods upon payment of the specified tax. The petitioner retained the right to challenge the tax imposition and compounding fee, as mentioned in the impugned notice, in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the release of the subject goods upon payment of the one-time tax. The petitioner's right to challenge the tax imposition and compounding fee was preserved. The judgment also indicated the closure of connected pending applications without any order as to costs.