2016 (5) TMI 222 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seeking direction to release old own used KOBELCO Hydraulic Excavator - Machinery transported for job work with all requisite documents including Form JJ - Detained on the ground that there was a clerical error in Form JJ while mentioning the TIN number of the contract - Petitioner contended that, even after production of the original certificates with the proof of evidence, the same were not considered by the 1st respondent. Held that - the 1st respondent is directed to release the KOBELCO Hydraulic Excavator detained pursuant to the Goods Detention Notice 665/15-16 dated 15.03.2016, forthwith on production of a copy of this order. Further, the 2nd respondent is directed to verify the records of the petitioner with regard to the purchase of the Excavator and if necessary, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass suitable orders. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Detention of KOBELCO Hydraulic Excavator Model SK480 LC-8 due to clerical error in 'Form JJ' mentioning TIN number of the contract.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act, owned a Hydraulic Excavator that required major repairs and was not in use for over two years. Another entity requested the petitioner to send the Excavator for job work, and the petitioner transported it with all necessary documents, including 'Form JJ'. However, the Excavator was detained by the 1st respondent on the grounds of a clerical error in 'Form JJ' related to the TIN number of the contract.

The petitioner argued that despite providing original certificates and evidence, the 1st respondent did not consider the documents. The petitioner also highlighted Circular No.33/2014, which advised against exceeding limits and usurping the power of Assessing Officers while detaining consignments. The petitioner's counsel presented the invoice related to the Excavator purchase, which was verified by the Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

The Additional Government Pleader acknowledged the invoice and suggested releasing the consignment with the vehicle, requesting the 2nd respondent to verify the petitioner's records and take necessary actions. Considering the submissions from both sides, the judge directed the 1st respondent to release the detained Excavator upon the production of the court order. Additionally, the 2nd respondent was instructed to verify the petitioner's records regarding the Excavator purchase and take appropriate actions if needed.

Therefore, the Writ Petition was disposed of with the directive for immediate release of the Excavator and subsequent verification of records by the 2nd respondent, without imposing any costs.