9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pradesh and thus, it was the consignor, there was no legal ground available for the respondents to pass the detention order. Thus, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, the detention order is not only without jurisdiction and the same is void under law. Consequently, the order imposing compounding fees is also without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed. - W.P. (MD). Nos. 6167, W.P. (MD). Nos. 6168, W.P.M.P.(MD) Nos. 6719, W.P.M.P.(MD) Nos. 6721 - - - Dated:- 1-12-2010 - NAGAMUTHU S. J. R. Venkataraman, Senior Counsel for T. Ramesh Kutty for the petitioners Pala Ramasamy, Special Government Pleader, for the respondents ORDER Since common issues are involved in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dited to the account of the K.G.S. Scan. Thereafter, the said equipment was sold by the Siemens Limited to one Kamineni Education Society (Kamineni Institute of Medical Sciences), Sripuram Narketpalli, Nalakonda District, Andhra Pradesh State, under Invoice dated July 2, 2005. Admittedly, it was an inter-State sale. The petitioner instructed the K.G.S. Scan, Madurai to deliver the equipment to Associated Road Carrier, who is to transport the equipment to Nalakonda. The Siemens Limited had handed over the invoices pertaining to the sale and other transport documents to the transporter. While so, the machinery was loaded on the carrier. The second respondent, viz., the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Roving-Squad-Additional) made a su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petitions. I have heard Mr. R. Venkataraman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Pala Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have also perused the records carefully. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is admitted that the goods in question were originally sold by the Siemens Limited to the K.G.S. Scan on March 30, 2002 under Invoice No. 1810008699. It is also admitted in the counter that on July 2/3, 2005, the K.G.S. Scan resold the same to Siemens Limited for a sum of ₹ 75,00,000. It is also admitted that subsequently, the Siemens Limited sold away the same to a company in Andhra Pradesh under appropriate invoice, which was also produced at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005, the equipment was sold by the K.G.S. Scan. Regarding this aspect, there is no dispute at all between the parties. Thus, on account of the said sale made on July 2/3, 2005, the ownership of the equipment had transferred in favour of the Siemens Limited. After the Siemens Limited had become the owner, it had sold away the property to a company in Andhra Pradesh. This was done under Invoice No. 3000290147, dated July 2, 2005. Thereafter, the goods were being loaded in the vehicle provided by the transporter. Therefore, the Siemens Limited was the consignor and the equipment was to be transported to Andhra Pradesh. For this inter-State sale also, as per the provisions of the Central Act, appropriate tax has been paid by the Siemens Limite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the owner, if at all the detention order is valid, compounding fees can be imposed only against the Siemens Limited. But, instead of that, the order dated July 7, 2005 has been issued against the K.G.S. Scan. On this score, in my considered opinion, the order as against the K.G.S. Scan is liable to be quashed, because the K.G.S. Scan is not liable to pay any compounding fee at all. At this juncture, I have to make it clear that if at all it is the case of the respondents that there was tax evasion by the K.G.S. Scan, when the equipment was sold by the K.G.S. Scan to the Siemens Limited, as I have already stated, it is for the commercial tax authorities to make appropriate assessment by initiating appropriate proceedings under the Act, aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under law. Consequently, the order imposing compounding fees is also without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed. In the result, both the writ petitions stand allowed and the impugned orders are quashed, however, with a liberty to the Commercial Tax Authorities under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act of 1959, to initiate appropriate proceedings against KGS Advanced MR and CT Scan in accordance with law, if the authorities have got materials to show that there was evasion of commercial tax at the hands of the said centre. The same shall be done strictly in accordance with the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act of 1959, after affording sufficient opportunity to the KGS Advanced MR and CT Scan. In view of this order, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
