9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 440 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDetention of goods and vehicles - vehicle did not pass through the route in which the check post was established. - for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a registered dealer and the goods in question were transported with valid documents, such as, Form JJ (delivery note), Etransit pass etc., which would disclose that the goods were transported for delivery at Bangalore. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the driver of the vehicle took a different route inadvertently so as to reach Bangalore shortly - Held that - the writ petition is disposed of, by directing the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹ 25,000/- towards tax to the respondent. On payment of the same by the petitioner, the goods in question shall be released forthwith. With regard to compounding fee, it is always open to the petitioner to challenge the same before the competent authority in the manner known to law.
Issues:
Challenge to goods detention notice dated 02.01.2016 and seeking release of detained goods. Analysis: The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, filed a writ petition challenging a goods detention notice issued by the respondent. The petitioner, a manufacturer of steel bars and trips, transported 16.145 MT of TMT bars to their godown at Bangalore on 02.01.2016. The goods were detained by the respondent as the vehicle did not pass through the established check post route. The petitioner contended that the goods were transported with valid documents like Form JJ and Etransit pass, intended for delivery at Bangalore. The petitioner claimed that the driver inadvertently took a different route to reach Bangalore quickly. The respondent alleged that the goods were transported without valid documents to avoid tax liability, leading to the detention of goods and issuance of the impugned notice. Upon hearing both parties and examining the evidence, the court found that the petitioner should pay a tax amount of Rs. 25,000 for the release of the detained goods. The court, considering the circumstances, directed the petitioner to pay the tax to the respondent for the release of the goods. The court disposed of the writ petition with this order, allowing the goods' release upon payment of the specified tax amount. The petitioner was also informed of the option to challenge the compounding fee before the competent authority as per legal procedures.
|
