2020 (5) TMI 470 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of compounding/composition fees under Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - allegation is that the goods transport accompanied defective an therefore, there was contravention of 71(5) of the Act - revision petition was dismissed by the 2nd respondent holding that the goods moved and the details in invoice No.0415 did not match - HELD THAT - Though the petitioner claims that 7 logs were purchased by the petitioner on 06.08.2010 from M/s.New Patel Saw Mills, Shengottah, it is noticed that the petitioner has produced yet another commercial invoice dated 31.08.2010, wherein also, a transaction in respect of 7 logs has been shown for a total value of ₹ 13,50,318/- (₹ 12,00,283/- ₹ 15,00,035/-). The petitioner has also enclosed the copy of another delivery Form JJ dated 03.09.2010 to show that the balance of 3 logs valuing ₹ 6,30,000/0 approximately were being sent back to the petitioner - It is not clear how invoice dated 31.08.2010 can be relied in support of the purchase of 7 logs on 06.08.2010. The petitioner has also not stated these facts before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner had earlier purchased 7 logs from the said M/s.New Patel Saw Mill, Shengottah on 06.08.2010 and had purportedly delivered the same to Sri Swastik Saw Mill, Erode for cutting and sawing. However, a new invoice dated 31.08.2010 has been filed to substantiate the same transaction. This raises doubt. Two transactions cannot be one and the same. Since there was several disputed questions of facts, which were not placed before the 2nd respondent by the petitioner, a fair chance may be given to the petitioner to place the same before the 2nd respondent for the latter to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order passed by Joint Commissioner under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for compounding fee under Section 72.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (CT) under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, for a compounding fee under Section 72. The petitioner claimed to have purchased imported timbers from a saw mill in Tirunelveli District, which were sent to another saw mill in Erode for cutting. Due to delays, only 4 out of 7 logs were delivered to the petitioner at Coimbatore initially. The remaining logs were to be delivered later. However, the vehicle carrying the cut timbers was intercepted by an officer in Coimbatore, alleging a contravention of the Act and imposing a compounding fee under Section 72(1)(a).

The petitioner contended that the 3rd respondent had no jurisdiction to impose the compounding fee and filed a revision petition before the Joint Commissioner, which was dismissed. The petitioner argued that the goods were sent for cutting, and the delay in delivery was beyond their control. The Joint Commissioner upheld the compounding fee, stating discrepancies in the invoice details and the goods moved.

The Court noted that the petitioner had not clearly explained the transaction details, and discrepancies in the invoices raised doubts. The Court observed that two invoices for the same transaction with different values created confusion. As disputed facts were not presented before the Joint Commissioner, the Court directed the petitioner to submit all documents and explanations within 30 days for a fresh decision by the Joint Commissioner through video conferencing, if necessary due to the pandemic.

Therefore, the Court quashed the impugned order and instructed the petitioner to provide detailed submissions for a fresh decision by the Joint Commissioner, allowing a fair chance to present all relevant facts and evidence before a new order is passed in accordance with the law.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, highlighting the key arguments, decisions, and directions provided by the Court for a comprehensive understanding of the case.