2015 (9) TMI 682 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Retention of goods One-time payment for release Petition was filed challenging impugned order by which, on verification of bills, delivery address, TIN Number and CST Number, was not found, violating Rule 5 of TNVAT Act 2006 and thereby, goods were retained However, petitioner submitted that in order to avoid further loss of time, petitioner was prepared to pay one time tax reserving his right to challenge impugned order Held that - respondent submitted that if petitioner comes forward to pay one time tax for release of goods, on payment of entire one time tax indicated in order, fourth respondent will not hesitate to release goods Thus, petitioner directed to pay one time tax before Assessing Officer Decided in favour of Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer under TNVAT Act 2006 for violation of Rule 5 - Detention of goods at Katpadi Checkpost - Payment of one-time tax for release of goods - Right to challenge impugned order before Revisional Authority.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition was filed to challenge the impugned order issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer at Katpadi Checkpost, which ordered the retention of goods due to an alleged violation of Rule 5 of the TNVAT Act 2006. The petitioner, a registered dealer in trading of papers, had purchased goods from Andhra Pradesh, and despite correct collection of 2% CST Tax and other duties, the goods were detained for reasons including the absence of TIN Number and CST Number on the invoice. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay the one-time tax to secure the release of goods while reserving the right to challenge the order before the Revisional Authority.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the notice issued for the alleged violation of Rule 5 of the TNVAT Act 2006 was unjustified. However, to expedite the process, the petitioner agreed to pay the one-time tax while maintaining the intention to challenge the impugned order before the Revisional Authority. On the other hand, the Additional Government Pleader for taxes representing the respondent stated that upon payment of the indicated one-time tax, the respondent would release the goods without delay.

After considering the submissions from both parties, the court directed the petitioner to pay the one-time tax before the Assessing Officer. Upon providing proof of payment, the respondent was instructed to release the goods. The petitioner retained the option to challenge the correctness of the impugned order by pursuing a revision order. Subsequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of without any costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed, bringing the matter to a conclusion.