9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 536 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDetention of goods - respondent detained the goods in the lorry stating that the goods were transported from Kerala to Erode without the invoice or the agreement copy - Held that - impugned order is only a notice, for which, the petitioner has to necessarily submit its reply, this Court only directs that the petitioner shall give a detailed reply, for which, fifteen days time is granted. In the mean while, the petitioner shall pay a sum of ₹ 30,000/- Rupees thirty thousand only out of the amount to be assessed by the respondent as contemplated under the Act and on such payment, being made, the respondent is directed to release the goods detained, to the petitioner Company, forthwith. It is made clear that the petitioner Company has to subject themselves to the adjudication proceedings that may be initiated by the respondent - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
Challenge to Goods Detention Notice Analysis: The petitioner, a commission agent, sought to quash the Goods Detention Notice issued by the respondent, alleging that ground nut oil worth Rs. 3,50,000 was detained without proper reason on the grounds of lack of invoice or agreement copy during transportation from Kerala to Erode. The petitioner contended that the goods were transported with necessary documents and delivery notes as required by law. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay a one-time amount of Rs. 30,000, to be assessed by the respondent, and to submit objections in due time. The Court considered the arguments presented and directed the petitioner to provide a detailed reply within fifteen days. Additionally, the petitioner was instructed to make a payment of Rs. 30,000, a portion of the total amount to be assessed by the respondent. Upon receipt of this payment, the respondent was ordered to release the detained goods to the petitioner's company immediately. It was emphasized that the petitioner's company must comply with any adjudication proceedings initiated by the respondent. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of without any costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The judgment provided a clear directive for the petitioner to follow in order to secure the release of the detained goods, ensuring compliance with the legal procedures outlined in the Act.
|
