2014 (7) TMI 1042 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of goods - Incorrect invoices - same serial number of two different invoices were available with driver - Held that - without going into the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned in this Writ Petition, the respondent is directed to release the goods detained, to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner pays the entire tax amount, which will be assessed by the respondent as contemplated under the Act. It is made clear that the petitioner has to subject himself to the adjudication proceedings that may be initiated by the respondent - Writ Petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Detention of goods based on same serial number on different invoices.
2. Compliance with required documents under the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
3. Petitioner's readiness to pay the entire tax amount assessed by the respondent.
4. Release of detained goods by the respondent.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought to quash the Goods Detention Notice issued by the respondent due to the detention of consignments moving to another party on the grounds of the same serial number on two different invoices. The petitioner argued that the consignments were covered by necessary documents, and the detention was unjustified.

2. The petitioner, a registered dealer in marbles and granites, contended that the goods were transported with proper delivery notes and other required documents under the relevant tax acts. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay the entire tax amount assessed by the respondent, without forfeiting the right to challenge the assessment before the appropriate authority.

3. The Court, after hearing the arguments, referred to a previous case where goods were released on payment of tax by the petitioner under protest. Following this precedent, the Court directed the respondent to release the detained goods to the petitioner upon payment of the entire tax amount to be assessed by the respondent. The petitioner was also required to participate in any adjudication proceedings initiated by the respondent.

4. The judgment emphasized that the release of goods was subject to the condition of payment of the tax amount assessed by the respondent. The petitioner was granted relief without delving into the merits of the impugned order, with a directive for the immediate release of the detained goods. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition without imposing any costs on either party.