9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not have any IE code or TIN number, as the appellant had not registered its office at West Bengal under the said State Taxation Law. Moreover, those documents such as Bill of lading, invoice and road challan produced by the appellant were found bogus by the Revenue. In order to rebut the same, there has been no documents from the side of the appellant and no plausible or acceptable arguments have been made on the side of the appellant. The appellant has not made out any case to release the goods in question either without paying the tax or with execution of bank guarantee alone - Appeal dismissed. - Writ Appeal No.1145 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 4-10-2019 - Mr. Justic S. Manikumar And Mr.Justice R. Suresh Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner had kept the goods in the godown for the sale, the respondent / Revenue had issued a Goods Detention Notice, dated 21.02.2017 which is the order impugned. Challenging the same, the writ petition was filed. 5. The learned Judge in the writ court, after hearing both sides, by order, dated 20.07.2017 in the impugned Judgment, has confirmed the decision taken by the Revenue by taking into account the subsequent development, whereby on 06.03.2017, the Revenue issued a compounding notice, whereby directed the petitioner to pay tax due at 5% on the goods in question to the extent of ₹ 10,61,845/- and accordingly, the learned Judge in the impugned Judgment, dated 20.07.2017, directed the petitioner to pay the said tax witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal sale evading the tax under the TNVAT Act. 10. The learned counsel would further submit that, if at all on any apprehension of evasion of tax, the Revenue wanted to have a clutch over the petitioner, they cannot detain the goods and in this context the learned counsel would submit that, at the most the Revenue would release the goods on getting the bank guarantee for the alleged tax evasion as proposed by the Revenue and therefore by the subsequent notice of compounding, dated 06.03.2017 demanding the petitioner to pay one time tax of more than ₹ 10 lakhs could not have been made and therefore based on such compounding notice, since the learned Judge had been taking the issue in a different angle and directed the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd they are liable to be taxed at the rate of 5% and on the guise of exporting the same to abroad to claim that the goods are exempted, the appellant was trying to evade the tax liability. 15. Only after noticing all these defects, the Commercial Tax Officer concerned, has issued the Goods Detention Order, dated 21.02.2017 and thereafter also since there had been no response from the appellant, the Revenue decided to issue a compounding notice, dated 06.03.2017 by imposing one time tax. However without responding to the same, the appellant has preferred the writ petition before the writ court and the same has been considered by the learned Judge and has rightly decided the same in favour of the Revenue through the impugned Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question are not liable to be taxed under the provisions of the TNVAT Act. However, prima facie the documents produced by the appellant would disclose the fact that, the address given by the appellant does not have any IE code or TIN number, as the appellant had not registered its office at West Bengal under the said State Taxation Law. 19. Moreover, those documents such as Bill of lading, invoice and road challan produced by the appellant were found bogus by the Revenue. In order to rebut the same, there has been no documents from the side of the appellant and no plausible or acceptable arguments have been made on the side of the appellant to rebut the said contention of the Revenue that those documents claimed to have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice raised by the appellant on BCPL. 22. Moreover in that case, it was a concession given by the Revenue, as submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader appeared in the said case that, the detained goods can be released to the appellant, if security is furnished by the appellant in respect of tax in terms of Section 67(4) of the TNVAT Act. This was also recorded by the Division Bench in the said Judgment cited by the appellant side. 23. Here in the case in hand, the appellant has not registered at West Bengal and with the same name, i.e., M/s.Vaishnavi Overseas, it was registered at Moradabad at Uttar Pradesh and the owner of the godown namely Sre Ranga Logistics, where the goods were kept in, also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
