9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 133 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDetention of goods - printing machinery - the petitioner had not declared the three imports made by them by Sea and Air on 15.09.2016, 04.10.2016 and 07.03.2017 - Held that - the machinery is imported for the petitioner s personal use and their specific case that there is no sale or purchase taken place inside the State of Tamilnadu, I am of the view that the first respondent cannot continue to detain the goods any more - goods to be released on furnishing of bank guarantee - petition allowed - decided partly in favor of petitioner.
Issues:
Detention of goods for alleged tax evasion based on non-disclosure of previous imports in returns. Analysis: The petitioner, a registered dealer in printing business, imported machinery for personal use, claiming it does not attract sales tax as there was no sale within Tamil Nadu. The first respondent detained the goods citing non-disclosure of previous imports. The petitioner argued against detaining goods for personal imports and non-disclosure, stating the Assessing Authority should handle such matters, not the Check Post Officer. The first respondent claimed the petitioner did not declare previous imports, justifying the detention. The petitioner contended that direct imports for personal use do not warrant tax and penalty, challenging the authority of the first respondent to impose such charges. The High Court held that the first respondent, not being the Assessing Authority, lacked the power to impose tax and penalty based on non-disclosure. The court directed the release of goods upon the petitioner providing a bank guarantee for the tax amount. The Assessing Authority was instructed to conduct a hearing and decide on the matter within four weeks. In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that personal imports not involving sales within the state do not attract tax liability. The court highlighted the procedural error in the first respondent's actions and mandated the involvement of the Assessing Authority for such matters.
|
