Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (7) TMI 505 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (7) TMI 505 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Detention of the goods - non-movement of goods in a particular route - Section 67(5) of the TNVAT Act - Held that:- even if it is presumed that the vehicles had taken a diversified route i.e., 5 kilometres from the regular route, the Additional Government Pleader for the respondent has miserably failed to place before this Court any provision to justify the passing of the goods detention notices impugned herein. Therefore, when there is no provision, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 alia, contending that the impugned goods detention notices are illegal, since the goods were acco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oper documents viz., sale bill as prescribed under Section 67(5) of the TNVAT Act. Nonetheless, when the goods were in transit from Chennai to Paramathy, the respondent intercepted the vehicles and detained the goods along with the vehicles for the reason that the vehicles travelled in an unrelated route, namely, that the vehicles route being Chennai, Walaja, Vellore, Ambur (NH 46) and Namakkal, on the contrary, the vehicles had moved in an unrelated route, namely, Chennai, Walaja, Ranipet, Muth .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es 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 ro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

), 71(5)(a) & 71(8) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. 4. Continuing his arguments, he submitted that the jurisdiction of the check post officer under Section 67(2)(3) is to see that whether the goods are accompanied with the documents as prescribed under Section 67(5) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. Even if the respondent had any doubt in the said documents, he can write to the assessing officer of the concerned dealer to verify the same in the course of assessment and for that purpose the goods cannot be det .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the compounding proceedings, it has to be decided whether the dealer has evaded payment of tax or not and this apart, it has to be done by the regular 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ore, Ambur (NH46) and Namakkal, the vehicles had moved in an unrelated route, namely, Chennai, Walaja, Ranipet, Muthukadai. That apart, the vehicles crossed more than 5 kilometres from the diversion point, therefore, the respondent has rightly detained the goods along with the vehicles, on the ground that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 71(3)(d)(e), 71(5)(a) and 71(8) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The petitioner was also given an opportunity to compound the offence under Section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s dated 13.6.2015 read thus:- ''The goods moved from Chennai to Namakkal. On verification of the records, the movement is suspicious and attempt to evade tax. To verify the genuineness of the transaction, the goods with vehicle detained at the O/o the Ranipet (IN) checkpost until further orders from this office at their own risk.'' 7. A mere reading of the above reasons given by the respondent does not throw any light whether the vehicles of the petitioner were not carrying the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version