2016 (9) TMI 872 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Release of detained consignments - movements of the goods from Pulichappallam to Puducherry - inter-state transaction or not - production of documents for movement of the goods from one State to another - Held that - On verification of records, available with the driver of the Vehicle, it was found that the Sattva Hi Tech & Conware Private Limited, Panchavadi Complex Pullichapalayam, Gate pass was present. M/s.Sattva Hi-Tech and Conware Pvt. Ltd., is a custom free station/Container Freight Station, located at Puducherry. There can be no doubt to this issue, since this stand is taken by the Government of India. Similarly, in the Official Website of Trichy Customs, M/s.Sattva Hi-Tech and Conware Pvt. Ltd., situated at Pulichappallam, is shown to be within the Union Territory of Pondicherry. If that be the case, then the only thing, that has to be seen is as to where the goods were transferred. Admittedly, the goods have been taken to the petitioner s warehouse at Thondamanathm, which is within the limit of Villianur Taluk in Union Territory of Puducherry. Reason for detention not tenable - consignment to be released - writ petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the compounding notice issued by the first respondent.
2. Jurisdictional dispute regarding the movement of goods from Pulichappallam to Puducherry.
3. Interpretation of documents and invoices related to the goods in question.
4. Determination of whether the transaction constitutes an interstate movement.
5. Compliance with proper documentation requirements for the movement of goods between states.

Analysis:
1. The Writ Petition challenged the compounding notice issued by the first respondent based on a vehicular check that revealed certain discrepancies in the accompanying documents for goods transported from Pulichappallam to Puducherry. The notice demanded the payment of tax and compounding fee due to alleged deficiencies in documentation.

2. The petitioner contended that the goods in question were imported goods kept in a bonded warehouse in Puducherry before being transferred to the petitioner's warehouse in Thondamanatham. There was a jurisdictional dispute as to whether the movement of goods constituted an interstate transaction, with conflicting claims about the location of Pulichappallam and the boundaries of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

3. The court examined the documents presented by the petitioner, including a gate pass, bill of entry, and commercial invoice, to ascertain the origin and destination of the goods. The petitioner relied on information from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, to support the contention that Pulichappallam fell within the jurisdiction of Puducherry.

4. Despite the first respondent's assertion that Pulichappallam was on the Tamil Nadu border, the court found that the goods were moved to the petitioner's warehouse in Thondamanatham, located within the limits of Villianur Taluk in the Union Territory of Puducherry. This led to the conclusion that the transaction did not involve an interstate movement, as claimed by the respondents.

5. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the reasons for detention provided by the first respondent were not valid. The impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to release the consignments without any further delay. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurately determining the jurisdiction and proper documentation requirements for the movement of goods between states.