2022 (6) TMI 1038 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of Compounding fee - Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - certain documents which otherwise should have accompanied with the goods at the time of movement, were not available - petitioner had already paid the tax levied as one time tax, of course pursuant to the orders passed by this Court - HELD THAT - Whether the petitioner is liable to pay the compounding fee within the meaning of Section 72(1)(a) of the Act or not, has to be gone into only on the basis of the factual matrix and since the revisional authority under Section 54 of the Act is the final fact finding authority in this kind of cases, before whom the petitioner can very well lay his revision petition by putting forth his case both on facts as well as on law and therefore, without exhausting such an alternative remedy, the petitioner cannot come before this Court to file the present writ petition, as there has been no reason to interfere at this juncture by this Court on the impugned order on the said three grounds as stated by the learned Additional Government Pleader viz., (i) violation of principles of natural justice, (ii) want of jurisdiction and (iii) alleged violation of the Statute. In the absence of these three reasons, normally the parties would be relegated to approach the authority concerned by way of alternative remedy provided under the Statute and this is one such case, where the petitioner can be driven to go before the revisional authority under Section 54 of the Act. The limitation prescribed under the Act for filing such revision is 30 days and further 30 days is provided for condoning the delay. These 60 days is over by 19.01.2022 as of now, and if the petitioner files the revision, this limitation point may arise. However, in view of the afore stated facts and circumstances and also since the petitioner has taken some time to file this writ petition, this Court feels that a direction can be given to the revisional authority to entertain the revision petition if it is filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without raising the point of limitation. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the legality of the detention notice and subsequent tax imposition.
2. Dispute over the compounding fee levied on the petitioner.
3. Invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for judicial review.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the detention notice issued during a vehicle check at Ulundurpet Toll Gate, contesting the lack of certain accompanying documents. The High Court previously directed the release of the goods upon the petitioner's payment of a one-time tax. The final order, dated 19.11.2021, imposed a compounding fee in addition to the tax already paid. The petitioner argued that the initiation of proceedings based on incorrect premises and provisions renders the impugned order unlawful, as the goods did not fall under the VI Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

2. The respondent justified the compounding fee by alleging potential undisclosed goods transported due to a delay in presenting necessary documents. The Additional Government Pleader contended that the tax issue was settled following the High Court's previous order, leaving only the compounding fee subject to challenge. The respondent emphasized the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 54 of the Act for contesting the fee, asserting that the petitioner's recourse to Article 226 was premature.

3. The Court considered the submissions and found the petitioner's primary grievance to be against the compounding fee. Given the final fact-finding authority vested in the revisional authority under Section 54 of the Act, the Court deemed the alternative remedy sufficient for addressing the petitioner's concerns. Emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the revisional authority within two weeks to file a revision petition without raising the issue of limitation.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition without costs, allowing the petitioner to pursue the challenge to the compounding fee through the statutory revision process. The judgment underscored the significance of availing alternative remedies before resorting to extraordinary judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.