9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... du and no tax was paid or charged - Therefore 1strespondent as the prescribed authority under section 67 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was competent to detain goods and vehicle and verify the records and documents which accompanied the goods. For the same reasons, the 1st respondent was also competent to demand tax at the check post, if the first respondent was of the view that the detained goods was liable to tax but no tax was paid or charged. 1st respondent as the prescribed authority under section 67 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was competent to detain goods and vehicle and verify the records and documents which accompanied the goods. For the same reasons, the 1st respondent was also competent to dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supplier/Seller from a dealer of Gujarat namely Metro City Tiles Pvt. Ltd., Morbi, Gujarat. 4. These goods were being transported in two different vehicles. The vehicles along with the consignment were detained on 19.07.2013 by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer/Check Post Officer of Thoppur check Post, Thoppur Inward, Kurinji Nagar, Dharmapuri District. 5. The reasons given at time of detention are as follows:- (a) A transaction of sale liable to tax has taken place and that the tax payable in respect of the sale has not been paid. (b) The sale of the goods has, for the purpose of payment of tax, not been properly accounted for in the said documents. 6. Earlier, the Petitioner had filed Writ Petitions in W .P. Nos. 2078 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of Tamil Nadu which warrants action under section 71 of the Act with the compounding option under section 72 (1) (a) of the TNVAT Act. b) The R.Cs issued to the dealers under both acts (TIN : 33722029372 and CST 1091928) were already cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Thudialur Circle, Coimbatore with effect from 31.12.2012 vide proceedings in TIN 33722029372/2012-2013 dated 27.02.2013 (Copy enclosed) for the reason that the dealers were not doing business for which the Registration Certificate were issued. When the goods are transported from other state after the cancellation of the registration certificate of the dealers, the dealers are not entitled to issue C forms for the Concessional levy at 2% on their interstate p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,10,244/- and tax of ₹ 91,879/- and compounding fee of ₹ 1,83,758/-. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner's registration was not cancelled and to this effect the Petitioner's reference to extract from the Tax Information Exchange System taken on 05.08.2013 which shows the Petitioner's Registration was valid and subsisting events on 16.03.2013 and a similar extract from the Commercial Tax Department of Tamil Nadu Website dated 05.08.2013 showing the status of the Petitioner as active. 10. On behalf of the Respondents, it was also submitted that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy under these Statute. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oimbatore revealed that the petitioner was not doing business at M.G Complex, 297 Sivanatham Road, Rathinapuri Coimbatore which is the place of business in the registration issued to the petitioner. 15. It is further submitted that the name of the consignee was Metro Tiles Private Limited, Morbi and Sunshine Tiles Co Private Limited Gujarat and on verification it was noticed that the petitioner had effected interstate purchase for a value of ₹ 28, 20, 715 and ₹ 6, 98, 019/-during the assessment years 2012-13 and assessment years 2013-14. For the aforesaid interstate transaction the petitioner was required to have paid tax at 14.5% for an amount of ₹ 4, 09, 65/-and ₹ 1, 01, 212 respectively for the assessment yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.7.2013 for compounding of the of the offences specified in Section 71 of the Act. 21. There are however several disputed questions of fact on several counts. There is a disputeas to whether the petitioner s VAT and CST registration were valid and subsisting or were cancelled at the time of the detention of the goods. 22. Therefore, while upholding the exercise of power by the 1st respondent, I am inclined set aside the impugned order in so far as it seeks to demand compounding/composition fee. I therefore remit the case back to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate order on merits in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order is partially set aside to that extent. 23. The petitioner may file a detailed objection within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
