2016 (10) TMI 124 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Release of detained goods - Rice Bran Oil - goods transported from Andhra Pradesh to Mangalore - absence of TIN number - place of delivery not mentioned - Form LL - transit pass - Held that - in view of the contract between the petitioner and the buyer at Karnataka and their supplier at Andhra Pradesh and after perusing the Invoice dated 18.09.2016, wherein the name of the petitioner has been shown and the place of delivery is shown as Mangalore, via Bangalore, and also considering Form-LL dated 19.09.2016, it is a fit case where the respondent has to take note of these documents and release the goods. Respondent directed to take note of the Forms and Documents produced by the petitioner, verify the same and release the goods - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to goods detention notice due to lack of acceptable documents.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested a goods detention notice issued by the respondent concerning the transportation of Rice Bran Oil. The initial notice highlighted the absence of specific details, such as the TIN number, leading to the goods' detainment. The petitioner, a registered dealer in Tamil Nadu, clarified the transaction involving a buyer in Karnataka and goods sourced from Andhra Pradesh, destined for Mangalore. The petitioner explained the deviation in the transportation route via Katpadi due to unrest in Bangalore, necessitating the goods' passage through Coimbatore and Ullal to reach Mangalore.

The petitioner presented the e-SUGAM FORM from the Department of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, to support their claim. Despite the respondent's insistence on additional forms, the petitioner argued that as buyers, they were not obligated to provide certain documents. The respondent, however, maintained their position based on the petitioner's alleged failure to produce a transit pass, prompting a representation from the petitioner citing compliance with TNVAT Rules.

Upon review of the contractual arrangements and supporting documentation, including the Invoice and Form-LL, the court concluded in favor of the petitioner. Acknowledging the legitimacy of the transaction and the provided forms, the court directed the respondent to release the detained goods upon verification of the submitted documents. The judgment favored the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of considering the established facts and documents to facilitate the release of the goods.