9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated to have been periodically importing surgical and other allied equipments. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent dated 11.05.2017, by which the goods imported by the petitioner from Germany on 18.04.2017, was sought to be detained and one time tax has been demanded and compounding fee being two times of the one time tax has also been demanded. 2. The petitioner's case is that they had legitimately imported a surgical Microscope for Ophthalmic surgery, from Germany for a value of Rs. 63,30,642/- and this equipment was exclusively meant for their personal use in their hospital. The second respondent has treated the import transaction as a sale within the State of Tamil Nadu and tax h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt and the Court took note of the admitted fact that the petitioner had a valid import licence for import of the subject equipment. The reason for the second respondent to initiate action by issuing a detention notice is that the subject 'import' has been made for the purpose of sale within the State of Tamil Nadu. The second respondent who was present in Court, narrated certain unpleasant events owing to the conduct of the Customs House Agent of the petitioner namely, Sri.Vinayagar Customs Agent Private Limited, more particularly one Mr.Alex, who was the staff of the said company. The allegation was though Mr.Alex, received the copy of the detention notice from the second respondent, he walked away from the customs area along wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner. The report further states that the imported machinery has been installed in the hospital on 12.05.2017 and 13.05.2017 and at the time of verification, it was found that the imported equipment is being used by the petitioner for eye surgery. A statement was recorded from the concerned person of the petitioner and the report was submitted along with statements and photographs of the imported equipment. Based on the said inspection report, the Joint Commissioner (CT), Enforcement, Coimbatore, submitted a report to the first respondent vide letter dated 07.09.2017. The report clearly states that the imported equipment is being used by the petitioner in their hospital. 5. The report was placed before this Court and the matter was heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alers under the provisions of the TNVAT Act and CST Act and such concession cannot be extended to unregistered dealer like the petitioner. It is further stated that the burden of proof that a sale was effected outside the State is on the petitioner and if no proof is placed, then the sale can be treated as local sale. The import effected by the petitioner has not been disputed by the second respondent, rather admitted as the petitioner has a valid import licence. In such circumstances, the only fact that has to be ascertained is whether the suspicion in the minds of the second respondent that the goods are meant for sale within the State of Tamil Nadu is correct or not. For this purpose, this Court directed the Joint Commissioner (CT), Enfo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
