TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of petitioner. - W.P. No. 1853 of 2017 and WMP No. 1849 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2017 - Rajiv Shakdher, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramanathan For the Respondent : Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai ORDER 1. Issue notice. Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 1.1. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This writ petition is directed against the compounding order dated 15.12.2016. 3. Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, says, having regard to the circumstances obtaining in the present case, he would argue the matter based on the record filed before this Court. 4. Briefly, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al sale and were detained, while being moved from Coimbatore to Chennai. The petitioner, thus, contends that Section 67-A of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, (in short the 2006 Act), which was invoked for the purposes of issuance of Goods Detention Notice, and for issuance of compounding notice, was not applicable in the instant case. 5.1. To buttress the submission that the goods were being moved from Coimbatore to Chennai, the petitioner relies upon the extract of the Goods Detention Notice. 6. Mr.Annamalai, who appears for the respondent, says he cannot, but submit that in view of the reasons given in the Goods Detention Notice, clearly, Section 67-A of the 2006 Act could not have been applied. 7. I have heard the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge of the goods vehicle, upon entering into the State from a place outside the state, to a destination within the state, may be asked, on demand, to produce at the check-post, an advance inward way bill, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed in respect of such goods, which are notified by the Government. 8.2. Therefore, the only flaw which has crept in the impugned order, is that, while, the goods in issue were the notified goods, they were not entering the state from a place outside the state. 8.3. The record shows that the petitioner was ferrying the goods, even according to the respondent, from Coimbatore to Chennai, and that, the goods which were being ferried, were plywood. 8.4. Concededly, the goods fall in Ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
