TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehicles, this Court is not able to find any merit either in the goods detention notice - hence, they are liable to be set aside - writ petition allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. - W. P. Nos. 17347 to 17350 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2015 - The Honourable Mr. Justice T. Raja,J. For the Petitioner : Mr. A. P. Srinivas For the Respondent : Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai Addl. Government Pleader (Taxes) ORDER Challenging the goods detention notice Nos.535 to 538 dated 12.6.2015/ 13.6.2015 and the compounding notices in G.D.Nos.535/2015-16 to 538/2015-16 dated 14.6.2015 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement), Roving Squad, Vellore, the respondent herein, the petitioner has brought these writ petitions, inter ali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... junction is missed or wrongly diverted, then, by travelling in a different route only, the vehicles can reach the specified route. Therefore, the vehicles had travelled in the right route only, since after Muthukadai, again the said route will join the main road. 3. Emphasizing again, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the goods travelled with the correct documents as prescribed under the TNVAT Act, then the respondent officer has no jurisdiction to detain the goods, because there is no requirement under the TNVAT Act that the goods should be moved in a particular route. In these cases, when an explanation was offered by the representative of the petitioner, the respondent was not receptive. On the contrary, pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gular assessing officer and not by the check post officer. In addition thereto, the compounding of offence being an option, the respondent cannot force the petitioner to opt for compounding of the offence. Further no notice was issued by the respondent asking whether the petitioner was willing to compound the alleged offence. For all these reasons, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for quashing of the impugned goods detention notice Nos.535 to 538 dated 12.6.2015/13.6.2015 and the compounding notices in G.D.Nos.535/2015-16 to 538/2015-16 dated 14.6.2015. 5. Per contra, Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent submitted that the petitioner, claiming to be regular in sending the goods, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons given by the respondent does not throw any light whether the vehicles of the petitioner were not carrying the sale bills as required under the TNVAT Act, 2006. In this regard, it is necessary to look into Section 67(5) of the TNVAT Act, which reads as follows:- ''(5) The documents referred to in sub-sections (2) and (3) are bills of sale, or delivery notes, or such other documents, as may be prescribed.'' 8. A close reading of the above provision also clearly supports the case of the petitioner that the goods were moved with the bills of sale, therefore, the respondent ought not to have hurriedly intercepted the vehicles and ought not to have issued the impugned goods detention notices. Secondly, as contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
