Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2017 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 184 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxComposition of offence - Section 71(3)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - detention of goods - petitioner s case is that the goods, being perishable in nature namely tea, had to be immediately moved and that therefore, they paid the compounding fees of ₹ 2,89,868/- and ₹ 2,86,085/- respectively, though no specific orders compounding the offence and issuing a demand were served on the petitioner - Held that - in the instant case, no such compounding orders were issued. But, the Check Post Officer collected the said sum of ₹ 2,89,868/- and ₹ 2,86,085/- respectively. It is not known as to how the computation was done. If a compounding order is passed, then the petitioner could have challenged the same before the Revisional Authority and if that has not been done, obviously the revision petitions would have been within the period of limitation - taking note of the fact that no compounding orders were passed by the Authority concerned and only show cause notices for compounding the offence were issued, this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to present the revision petitions before the Revisional Authority - petitioner directed to represent the revision petitions along with a copy of this order before the Joint Commissioner (CT), Coimbatore Division - petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to show cause notices for composition of offence under Section 71(3)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Delay in filing revision petitions before the Joint Commissioner (CT), Coimbatore Division beyond the period of limitation. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the show cause notices issued by the respondent for composition of offence under the relevant tax act. The goods, perishable tea, were detained due to certain defects highlighted by the respondent at the check post. The petitioner paid compounding fees without specific compounding orders being served, and the goods were released. Subsequently, revision petitions were prepared but filed after a significant delay, leading to their rejection by the Joint Commissioner. The petitioner then approached the High Court challenging the show cause notices dated 21.3.2017. The High Court noted that no compounding orders were issued despite the collection of compounding fees by the Check Post Officer. This raised questions regarding the computation of the fees and the absence of a formal process for challenging the orders. Given these circumstances, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to present the revision petitions before the Revisional Authority for a re-evaluation of the factual dispute. The Court emphasized the importance of following due process and providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. As a result, the writ petitions were disposed of with directions for the petitioner to represent the revision petitions before the Joint Commissioner (CT), Coimbatore Division. The Joint Commissioner was instructed to consider the petitions on merits, ensuring a fair hearing for the petitioner's authorized representative. No costs were awarded, and the connected matters were closed. The Court also ordered the communication of the decision to the Joint Commissioner to ensure compliance with the directives issued in the judgment.
|