9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as required under Act and Rules framed thereunder – Court not inclined to permit petitioner to take away goods without complying requirements under detention notice – Thus, petitioner directed to pay tax and compounding fee as demanded by respondent – On such payment, goods in question shall be released – Decided in favour of Petitioner. - W. P. (MD) No. 13707 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 22-8-2014 - SIVAGNANAM T. S., J. N. Inbarajan for the petitioner. R. Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader, for the respondent. ORDER The petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the detention notice dated August 7, 2014. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Anna Salai I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 35,361 together with compounding fee of ₹ 70,722 in toto a sum of ₹ 1,06,083, this notice has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is neither an attempt nor evasion of tax payable under the Act, and in the instant case no sale was involved only a service job and the object of movement of the goods to super quality services was to ensure that a service of testing was conducted. Further, it is contended that there was a change of vehicle at Coimbatore for the movement of the consignment Trichy and consequently, the lorry receipt mentioned the name of a different vehicle and the respondent has wrongly written the service provider as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, the same invoice has been endorsed in manuscript by the dealer name of Super Quality Service, Trichy . It is gross violation of rule 15(3) of the TNVAT Rules read with section 69 of the VAT Act. Further it is submitted that the Super Quality Service, Trichy has already stopped the business as per the preliminary verification conducted by the respondents. In the above factual background, the impugned detention was issued demanding tax and compounding fee. Further it is contended that the explanation given by the petitioner stating that subsequently, the goods were diverted to Trichy for labour work by e-mail, is it clear after-thought to overcome the offence committed by the petitioner under section 71(5)(a) of the Act. It is furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court is of the view that the petitioner has not made any prima facie case for issuing interim direction to permit the petitioner to take the goods without even payment of tax or payment of compounding fees, and on the ground raised by the petitioner, this court is not inclined to quash the detention notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the items are high value items and the petitioner is a registered dealer and they should not be foreclosed from exhausting the remedy available under the Act, solely on the ground that tax and compounding fees is being collected from them. Further on facts, this court is not inclined to permit the petitioner to take away the goods without complying the requirements under the deten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
