9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evaded payment of tax under Section 71(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - The petitioner replied to the said Adjudication Notice dated 20.07.2015 vide its reply/objection dated 19.08.2015. In the said reply/objection, the petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the respondent and stated that only jurisdictional Assessing Authority was empowered under the Act to adjudicate tax liability and hence requested for dropping of the proceeding. The impugned order dated 20.01.2016 was passed by the respondent. In the impugned order, the respondent has merely stated that the reply of the petitioner was an afterthought and as such deserves no consideration. In the impugned order, it has also been observed that the explanation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this court in its order dated 18.10.2012 in W.P.No.28980 2012 and demands a balance amount of ₹ 4,76,852/- from the petitioner with a liberty to compound the alleged offence. 2. It is the case the petitioner that the petitioner is engaged in providing passive infrastructure support service to various mobile and internet service providers and therefore in connection with its business, the petitioner had procured battery cells from a dealer in Andhra Pradesh for being deployed at various sites. The invoice raised by the supplier declared the name of the consignee as Tvl.Reliance Infratel Ltd., No. 48, Bye pass Road, Kalavasal, Madurai which was an unregistered place of business of the petitioner and therefore the documents were const ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the proceeding. 7. Therefore, the impugned order dated 20.01.2016 was passed by the respondent. In the impugned order, the respondent has merely stated that the reply of the petitioner was an afterthought and as such deserves no consideration. In the impugned order, it has also been observed that the explanation of the petitioner cannot be accepted as there was an offence committed by the petitioner under Sections 71(3)(a) and 71(7) of the TNGST Act, 2006 and therefore, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to compound the offence under Section 72(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Vestas Wind Technology Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case, the detention of the goods was justified and therefore the writ petition was dismissed challenging the imposition of compounding/composition for. 13. On the other hand, in the case of Vestas Wind Technology Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement and Ors. referred to supra , the Court dealt with identical situation and observed as under:- 19. In my view, there was an error in assumption of jurisdiction by the 1st respondent Commercial Tax Officer namely the Check Post officer on the ground that the goods had not suffered tax as the manufacturer had indeed charged tax in the invoice raised on the petitioner. The 1st respondent not only erred in demanding tax at the Check ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned proceeding by restricting the compounding fee ₹ 2,000/- under Section 72(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Respondents are therefore directed to refund the excess amount paid by the petitioner to towards compounding/composition amount. As far as the amount which was collected towards tax is concerned, same can beadjusted towards the tax liability of the petitioner. 24. The writ petition stands partly allowed. Accordingly, miscellaneous petition is closed. No cost. 14. The facts of the present case fall within four corners of the above case. Following the above ratio, I am inclined to allow this Writ Petition by restricting the compounding fee to be paid by the petitioner for a sum of ₹ 2,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
