Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

B. Kolandaivel Versus The Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement) And Others

2016 (4) TMI 611 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Seeking release of 100 bags of Hans Chhap tobacco products detained - Goods Transport Operator - Goods to be transported from Delhi to Puducherry and not within the state of Tamil Nadu - Held that:- 3rd respondent is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner by permitting him to produce all the relevant documents pertaining to the transportation of tobacco to Puducherry and on production of such documents, if the 3rd respondent, after verifying the documents, satisfied with the same, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed 09.12.2015 of the 1st respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to forthwith release 100 bags of hanschhap tobacco products detained under the impugned proceedings and the petitioner's vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA 01 AE 3002. 2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that he is carrying on business as Goods Transport Operator within the country. On 30.121.2015, M/s Dhanalaxmi Enterprises, New Delhi, had sold a consignment of tobacco of 50 bags to M/s Dhuruvam Tr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e consignment to M/s Dhuruvam Trading Company through M/s Bharat Transport Fleet Owners and Transport Contractor to be transported to Puducherry. The said Bharat Transport had engaged the services of the petitioner for the purpose of transport of the said consignment and accordingly the consignment of 100 bags of tobacco of "Hans Chhap" was entrusted to the petitioner for transportation from Delhi to Puducherry. 2.3 On 09.12.2015, when the vehicle was crossing the check post at Omallur .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to the petitioner, when he contacted the 1st respondent for release of the vehicle and the goods, the 1st respondent stated that the vehicle has been entrusted to the 3rd respondent herein and reiterated that the goods are prohibited goods and hence he would not release the same. When the petitioner contacted the 3rd respondent for release of the goods, the 3rd respondent also reiterated the same stand. 3. Mr.A.R.L.Sunderasan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version