9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovision. Therefore, he could have directed the petitioner to pay tax and released the goods and left it open to the petitioner to work out other remedies available under the Act. However, this was not done by the respondents. The amount collected from the petitioner cannot be treated as penalty, but should be treated as tax. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to treat the remittance made by the petitioner, i.e., ₹ 2,29,680/- as tax and it is left open to the petitioner to work out his remedies available under the Act in the event they claim for adjustment. - W.P.No.16376 of 2016, W.M.P.No.14167 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.K.Soundar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, not been properly accounted for in the documents referred to in sub-section (5), and if the said officer is satisfied, after making such enquiry as he deems fit, that with a view to prevent the evasion of tax payable in respect of the sale or purchase of the goods carried, it is necessary to detain the goods, he shall detain the goods and direct the driver or any other person in-charge of the goods vehicle or boat, or the consignor or the consignee,- (i) to pay such tax; or (ii) to furnish adequate security in such form and in such manner and to such authority as may be prescribed, on behalf of the person liable to pay such tax. 4 On perusal of the same, it is evident that the officer concerned, if he is satisfied th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the impugned order itself that he has exercised his power under the said provision. Therefore, he could have directed the petitioner to pay tax and released the goods and left it open to the petitioner to work out other remedies available under the Act. However, this was not done by the respondents. 7 With regard to the allegation that the petitioner has not paid any tax, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been regularly filing monthly Form-I Returns and they have claimed input tax credit of ₹ 58,77,252/- . He further submits that the TDS amount would exceed the VAT due of ₹ 63,38,048/- . Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that they need not pay any tax. 8 In the light ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
