2022 (4) TMI 648 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refund of Compounding fee - no inspection or fault found with the records maintained by the petitioner nor there was any revision of assessment of the earlier period - TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the third respondent detained the petitioner's goods on 25.05.2016 for the reason that goods were taken to the un-registered place of business and the goods were released on 27.05.2016 after payment of the compounding fee of ₹ 4,44,191/-. As against the order of the third respondent collecting compounding fee, the petitioner preferred revision before the second respondent and the said revision was dismissed on 11.03.2019. Since the first respondent has no power to condone the delay in filing the second revision, the first respondent issued the impugned notice dated 10.09.2020 and returned the revision papers to the petitioner - this writ petition has been filed after a lapse of two years and the reason for the delay in filing this writ petition has not been explained by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition suffer on the ground of delay and latches. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for refund of compounding fee.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, imported goods for a new venture, detained for being taken to an unregistered place of business. Goods released after payment of compounding fee. Petitioner's revision against fee dismissal led to further revision filed beyond the limitation period before the first respondent, who returned the papers due to the delay. Petitioner argued for condonation of delay for substantial justice, but the first respondent lacked such power. The respondent contended the writ petition was filed after a two-year delay without explanation, leading to dismissal based on delay and latches.

The court noted the undisputed detention of goods and subsequent release upon fee payment. The petitioner's revision process, including the second revision to the first respondent, was outlined. Despite the lack of power for condonation of delay, the first respondent returned the revision papers due to the delay. The court emphasized the writ petition's filing after a two-year delay without a satisfactory explanation, leading to dismissal on the grounds of delay and latches.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition without costs, citing the unexplained two-year delay in filing as the basis for the decision. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.