9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied the relevant invoice evidencing the sale and the tax payable thereon by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent was in detaining the goods at the Check Post and in demanding the tax from the petitioner - there are no merits in the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had no jurisdiction to. Considering the value of the goods and the fact that the petitioner may be involved in in the transaction for the 1st time, the revenue can take sympathetic view and not initiate any prosecution proceedings - petition dismissed. - W.P.No.23440 of 2012 And M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 19-5-2020 - Mr. Justice C. Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravee Kumar For the Respondents : Mr. R.Swarnavel, G.A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commrcial Tax Officer, Roving Squad, Villupuram for releasing the consignment on payment of sum of ₹ 82,000/-. 4.Thereafter, the Petitioner had been issued with the impugned order dated 13.08.201 titled as the amount paid by the petitioner was appropriated and since the petitioner had allegedly violated Section 71(3) (a), 71(3)(d) and 71(7) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to pay compounding amount of ₹ 1,63,481/- after adjusting the amount already paid by the petitioner towards tax. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions of this court and that of the Hon'bleSupreme Court:- (i) Shija Rubber Vs. The Check Post Officer - made in W.P.No.22484 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge of the aforesaid option given by the respondent. If the respondent do not prosecute the petitioner for the violation of the provisions of the Act, the option given in the impugned proceeding is redundant.. In any event, the goods at the time of their detention at Vikravand Check post had accompanied the relevant invoice evidencing the sale and the tax payable thereon by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent was in detaining the goods at the Check Post and in demanding the tax from the petitioner. I find no merits in the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had no jurisdiction to. The petition is therefore dismissed. However, considering the value of the goods and the fact that the petitioner may be involved in in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
