9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2017 - K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. V. Sundareswaran For the Respondents : Mr. K. Venkatesh ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved against the proceedings of the first respondent dated 08.03.2017, detaining the petitioner's goods viz., a printing machinery and the consequential notice dated 13.03.2017, calling upon the petitioner to pay the tax and penalty totalling a sum of ₹ 7,11,123/-. 2. The case of the petitioner in short, is as follows:- The petitioner is a registered dealer and carrying on the business in printing since 40 years. Monthly returns are being filed before the third respondent regularly and the sales taxes are remitted without any default. The petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the first respondent that the impugned proceedings have been rightly issued against the petitioner. However, it is admitted in the counter that the petitioner filed letter on 09.03.2017, wherein they claimed that the goods imported are capital goods and that they are not doing any trading business. 4. Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent has no authority to detain the goods, when there is no sale or purchase of goods taken place inside the State of Tamilnadu so as to presume or assume that the petitioner has evaded the payment of tax. He further submitted that the goods are imported by the petitioner directly from the foreign seller and when the goods are imported and utilised by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of import by the petitioner at the Chennai Airport Air Cargo Complex. When that being the factual position, I do not think that the first respondent, acting as a Check Post Officer, can finally conclude that the petitioner is liable for tax on the reason that they did not disclose the imports of two machineries on earlier occasions in their returns. At the best, the first respondent should have referred the matter to the jurisdictional Assessing Authority viz., the third respondent for taking appropriate proceedings against the petitioner, if the allegation made against the petitioner is based on certain materials. 9. In this case, the first respondent claims that the verification of the web site indicates that the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
