9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etaining the goods by giving an option to the petitioner to pay amounts under Section 72(1-a) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. By effecting a direct sale from Tamil Nadu without obtaining registration, the petitioner at best can be said to have violated the provision relating to the procedure. By the effecting sale from State of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner avoided criss-cross movement of the goods - Therefore, the petitioner cannot be subjected to higher tax as the officers acting as assessing officer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 act as counterparts of each other. No useful purpose would be served by asking the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee four times the tax after the detained goods were allowed to be released by the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o issued on the said date followed by a notice dated 29.11.2010 which called upon the petitioner to pay the amounts under Section 72 (1-a) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 amounting to ₹ 4,40,460/-. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.27924 of 2010 and obtained an order on 07.12.2010 in the said writ petition. 4. By the aforesaid order, the Court directed the respondent/Commercial Tax Department to release the detained goods on condition of payment of appropriate tax demanded, which was to be finally determined subject to final adjudication of the tax. 5. Under these circumstances, the petitioner enclosed a demand draft for ₹ 74,909/- being 2% CST in terms of Section 8(4) of the CST Act, 1956 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e right to be assessed at the concessional rate on his turnover of inter-state sales, provided other conditions referred to above are satisfied. To put it in another way, the failure of a person to get himself registered does not in any way affect or control the rates of tax specified in Section 8. 10. On the other hand, defending the impugned order, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent/Commercial Tax Department submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has also filed a reply to the impugned notice dated 14.12.2010 and partly acquiesced into the said proceedings. He further submits that the impugned notice has merely asked the petitioner to pay the balance amount of tax in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a revision before the Joint Commissioner challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Pennaiyar Bridge Check Post, which is impugned in the writ petition in W.P.No.33566 of 2012. In case, the appellant has already paid the tax, there is no liability to make statutory deposit. It is open to the appellant to produce materials to demonstrate that there is no statutory liability to pay tax on EMU Oil. The authority shall consider the entire factual matrix and pass a detailed order on merits. The question of refund of tax paid by the appellant would depend upon the ultimate orders to be passed by the Joint Commissioner. In case revision petition is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sales effected by the petitioner from Tamil Nadu to a buyer in the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh in Hyderabad. 16. Since the petitioner is not an assessee within the jurisdiction of the respondent, the respondent was justified detaining the goods by giving an option to the petitioner to pay amounts under Section 72(1-a) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. 17. However, even if the petitioner had transferred the goods to its own registered premises in the State of Maharashtra and thereafter effected an interstate sale to a buyer in the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh in Hyderabad, the petitioner would have been liable to pay appropriate tax under Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 18. Both the local t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
