9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduced yet another commercial invoice dated 31.08.2010, wherein also, a transaction in respect of 7 logs has been shown for a total value of ₹ 13,50,318/- (₹ 12,00,283/- + ₹ 15,00,035/-). The petitioner has also enclosed the copy of another delivery Form JJ dated 03.09.2010 to show that the balance of 3 logs valuing ₹ 6,30,000/0 approximately were being sent back to the petitioner - It is not clear how invoice dated 31.08.2010 can be relied in support of the purchase of 7 logs on 06.08.2010. The petitioner has also not stated these facts before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner had earlier purchased 7 logs from the said M/s.New Patel Saw Mill, Shengottah on 06.08.2010 and had purportedly delivered the same to Sri S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of the petitioner that the consignment was delivered to Sri Swastik Saw Mill, Erode on 08.08.2010 as the said Sri Swastik Saw Mill had necessary sawing machines for cutting timbers/logs of bigger size. The Said Sri Swastik Saw Mill, Erode, however, could only cut and deliver 4 out of 7 logs to the petitioner at Coimbatore and wanted some more time to deliver the balance quantity from the remaining 3 logs later. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle carrying the cut timbers were intercepted by the officer of the third respondent, Coimbatore on 21.08.2010 on the ground that the goods transport accompanied defective an therefore, there was contravention of 71(5) of the Act read with relevant rules and that thus the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explained the transaction and authorities acting under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 have passed a fair order. It is further submitted that when the goods were detained, there was no proper documents to substantiate and correlate that the goods allegedly sold on 06.08.2010 vide invoice No.0415 by M/s.New Patel Saw Mill to petitioner did not match and therefore, the 3rd respondent was justified in not only detaining the consignment but also in demanding tax and imposing compounding/composition fee of ₹ 1,35,550/-. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents. I have also perused the documents filed by the petitioner. 10. The petitioner has filed two typed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had earlier purchased 7 logs from the said M/s.New Patel Saw Mill, Shengottah on 06.08.2010 and had purportedly delivered the same to Sri Swastik Saw Mill, Erode for cutting and sawing. However, a new invoice dated 31.08.2010 has been filed to substantiate the same transaction. This raises doubt. Two transactions cannot be one and the same. Further, the value of the goods declared in Form JJ dated 06.08.2010 is ₹ 11,50,000/-,whereas the value of the 7 logs covered by invoice dated 31.08.2010 is ₹ 13,50,318/- (₹ 12,00,283/- + ₹ 15,00,035/-), though the quantity in both the invoices are identical i.e. 36.594 cbm. Since there was several disputed questions of facts, which were not placed before the 2nd respondent by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
