9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .5, Transport details are wrongly mentioned. The petitioner shall pay a sum of ₹ 2,52,485/- being the amount of tax demanded by the respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As regards the compounding fee, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to file a revision before the competent authority, the petitioner shall furnish Bank guarantee for a sum of ₹ 7,57,455/- being the compounding fee demanded by the respondent on compliance of which the respondent shall release the goods detained immediately. - W.P.No.4746 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 26-3-2013 - V. Dhanapalan,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr.C.Baktha Siromoni For the Respondent : Mr. A. R. Jayaprathap, Governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only mistake noticed by the respondent is that there is no printed serial number in Form JJ bearing No.004120 dated 05.02.2013, which was also accompanied with the goods during the movement of goods and this is only a technical mistake which never warrants any detention of goods. As the normal business activities are affected and as the right to do business under Article 19(1)(g) is infringed, the petitioner is left with no other option except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the counter affidavit, the respondent has stated that for transport of goods from one place to another place and from one State to another State, necessary transit pass in Form-JJ has to be accompanied while its transit. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng fee has to be secured, otherwise, lot of prejudice would be caused to the Department in collecting the said compounding fee. He also submits that though the petitioner has a right of revision before the Joint Commissioner, it has not filed any revision so far. 7. Heard Mr.C.Baktha Siromoni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.R.Jayaprathap, learned Government Advocate (Tax) appearing for the respondent. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that the transport of goods from Chennai to Puducherry are supported by ten Sales Invoices, for the sale value of ₹ 14,84,445/- and there is no difference in the goods transported as per invoices. The respondent has issued goods detention notice in G.D.No.126/2012-13, dated 06.02.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities, but, the only defect according to the respondent, is that there is no printed serial number in Form JJ bearing No.004120 dated 05.02.2013 and also that in Column No.5, Transport details are wrongly mentioned. 11. Learned Government Advocate would contend that goods can be ordered to be released only on payment of a sum of ₹ 2,52,485/- being the tax liability, but, the payment of ₹ 7,57,455/- being the compounding fee should also be duly secured by the petitioner by furnishing a Bank Guarantee. The contention of the Government Advocate merits acceptance since, it would be difficult for the Department to collect the compounding fee. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to adopt the said cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
