2017 (6) TMI 142 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of goods - detention on the ground that the driver of the vehicle produced old dated Invoice No.1606187 dated 28.03.2017 and that the vehicle contained lesser number of units, when the invoice referred to the number of unit as 38 - Held that - the first respondent has erroneously taken the order number as Invoice Number, when such factual aspect is evidently available on the face of the invoice itself. Therefore, the first reason, which is factually wrong, has to go. Alleged discrepancies in the number of units of air conditioners - Held that - 14 numbers of air conditioners were already delivered by the petitioners on 05.04.2017 itself and the remaining 24 numbers alone are sought to be delivered to the purchaser on the very same day evening. The acknowledgement of receipt of 14 units by the buyer is evidently available in the invoice itself. The letters addressed by the purchaser to the petitioner dated 29.03.2017 and 05.04.2017 would further strengthen the case of the petitioner that the total number of units were intended to be supplied in two spells on the same day. The first respondent is not justified in detaining the goods - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of goods based on alleged discrepancies in the number of units and old invoice number.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a Goods Detention Notice issued by the first respondent due to discrepancies in the number of units of air conditioners and an old invoice number. The petitioner contended that out of the total 38 units ordered by the purchaser, 14 were delivered in the morning and the remaining 24 were to be delivered on the same day due to space constraints. The petitioner argued that the first respondent erred in concluding discrepancies and wrongly noted the order number as the invoice number. The tax for the transactions was also claimed to have been paid by the petitioner.

In response, the respondents filed a counter affidavit asserting that the units in the vehicle did not match the invoice and denied demanding any advance tax for releasing the goods. Upon hearing both sides, the court analyzed the reasons for detention. The court found the first reason regarding the old invoice number to be factually incorrect as the order number was mistakenly taken as the invoice number. Regarding the discrepancy in the number of units, the court noted that the invoice clearly indicated the delivery of 14 units in the morning and the remaining 24 units later in the day, supported by correspondence between the parties. Consequently, the court held that the first respondent was unjustified in detaining the goods based on these reasons.

As a result, the Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned goods detention notice was set aside. The first respondent was directed to release the goods immediately, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, resolving the matter in favor of the petitioner.