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

2016 (7) TMI 1158 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (7) TMI 1158 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Detention of goods to verify the genuineness - vehicle carrying prefabricated steel structurals and other allied articles - movement of goods from Andra Pradesh to Tamil Nadu - Held that:- It is not disputed by the respondents that the goods were accompanied with the documents mentioned in Section 69. Furthermore, the respondents does not dispute that the goods moved from State of Telangana to Tamil Nadu. In such circumstances, when there is no doubt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Raghavan Ramabadran For the Respondents : Mr. S. Manokaran Sundaram ORDER Heard Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Manokaran Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and with their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer in the State of Telangana under the provisions of the Value Added Tax Act of the State of Telangana an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the goods have suffered tax in the State of Telangana. However, four of the vehicles which were transporting the prefabricated materials were detained by the respondents. The goods were accompanied by all the relevant documents, including the invoice. However, the authority detained the goods alleging that the consignment having moved from Andra Pradesh to Tamil Nadu to verify the genuineness, the Goods Detention Notice had been issued. 3. It is fairly admitted by the learned counsel for th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g notice states that the petitioner is an unregistered dealer making interstate transaction which is an offence under Section 69 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, punishable under Section 71(8) of the TNVAT Act. The further stand taken in the impugned proceedings is that the petitioner is a works contractor, but he has not registered under the provisions of the TNVAT Act and CST Act and the transaction done by the petitioner with Apollo Tyres Limited is treated as an unregistered transaction and therefore .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y would arise only if there is any disputed question of facts are involved. In the instant case, the petitioner would contend that even assuming the allegation made in the impugned compounding notice is correct, yet, they are not liable to pay any tax much less compounding fee. To examine this question, it would be relevant to take note of Section 9 of the CST Act in terms of which the State of Telangana has exclusive power to collect the Central Sales Tax on such a transaction. It is not disput .....

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