9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Revision Petition) in Ref. No. JJ1/RP/295/96 dated May 26, 1998 and to order refund of the sum of Rs. 1,05,432 collected without any authority of law. 2.. Thiru V. Sundareswaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that when the goods were detained at the check-post there were valid documents. The goods were despatched as "self" and the goods were intended for sale by transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing necessary endorsement on the lorry receipts and collecting "C" forms for the inter-State sales effected from Surat. In such circumstances, the collection of compounding fee is not in order and the order of the Joint Commissioner (Revision Petition) justifying the collection of compounding fee on the ground that there was constructive delivery of the goods to a local buyer in Chennai is unwarra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments and there was no evasion of tax as such. Thus we find that the compounding fee collected under section 46(1)(a) on the ground of evasion of tax is totally without jurisdiction. Had there been any constructive delivery of goods after the goods reaching Chennai, the proper course of action is to levy tax and penalty by invoking the appropriate provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioner. 5.. It is open to the assessing authority to take action separately, if there was any sale of goods which attracts tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act in pursuance of the receipt of goods in question in Chennai on the basis of documents available in this case. With this observation, the original petition is allowed as indicated supra. And this Tribunal doth furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
