2015 (7) TMI 1263 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Release of detained goods - sale of goods or processing of goods? - the grievance of the petitioner is when the consignor is their branch at Kanyakumari District in Tamil Nadu the consignee is their own branch at Visakhapatnam Olam Agro India Private Limited is one and the same under the Act and there is no question of sale involved - Held that - This Court agreeing with the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to make the tax amount of Rs. 1, 59, 224 and produce the same for release of the goods as he is also entitled to challenge the impugned order by filing revision before the appropriate authority finds no impediment to release the goods - the petitioner is directed to pay the one time tax of Rs. 1, 59, 224/- and on payment of the said amount before the respondent the goods are directed to be released - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Goods Detention Notice

Analysis:
The writ petition was filed by Olam Agro India Private Limited to challenge the Goods Detention Notice no.1058 dated 10.07.2015 and sought directions to release the goods. The petitioner contended that they are a company with branches in multiple states, engaged in trading activities of cashewnuts. The goods in question were moving from Tuticorin Port to their branch office at Visakhapatnam for processing, not for sale. However, the goods were detained by the respondent at Villupuram on the grounds that the petitioner did not have a place of business at Tuticorin and the goods did not reach their destination in Kerala or Tamil Nadu as expected. The petitioner objected to the detention, explaining the internal movement within their company's branches. They requested the release of goods on payment of a one-time tax amount under protest to contest the matter through revision against the impugned order.

Resolution:
The Additional Government Pleader objected to the petitioner's request, stating that the goods were moving to the wrong destination. However, it was suggested that if the petitioner paid the one-time tax amount and furnished a bank guarantee, they could challenge the impugned order. The court agreed with the petitioner's readiness to pay the tax amount and allowed the release of goods upon payment. The petitioner was directed to pay the one-time tax amount and given the liberty to challenge the impugned order through revision before the appropriate authority. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the original impugned order was to be released for the petitioner to file a revision.