TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istered dealer, when the tax in respect of the goods have already been remitted and when the transportation of goods is duly covered by proper documentation, the respondent ought to have taken a sympathetic and indulgent view of the lapse committed by the driver of the vehicle - detention order dated 28.12.2018 and the order dated 11.01.2019 suffer from vice of gross unreasonableness and disproportionality - By directing the writ petitioner to pay a sum of ₹ 5,000/- towards fine to the respondent, the orders impugned in this writ petition stands quashed - petition allowed. - W.P.(MD)No.1287 of 2019 And W.M.P.(MD)No.1098 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2019 - Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan For the Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrasekaran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d proper cooperation. In these circumstances, the impugned order of the detention came to be passed. The respondent had also passed release order putting the writ petitioner on terms. A sum of ₹ 18,96,000/- had been levied as a penalty. The vehicle has also been seized and detained. Unless the writ petitioner remitted the said penalty amount, it has been made clear that the goods as well as the vehicle would not be released. It has been further made clear that the goods would be liable for confiscation and further proceedings under Section 130 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would be taken. Hence, this writ petition has been filed questioning the detention order dated 28.12.2018 and the order dated 11.01.2019 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion is not a Tamilian. His name is Badrinath Bhandari. He hails from Maharashtra. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner states that the said driver knows neither English nor Tamil. He knows only Marathi and Hindi. 9. The specific stand taken by the writ petitioner is that the driver without knowing the correct route had taken a wrong turn and headed towards Sivakasi. 10. It is also not in dispute that the bill is addressed only to the writ petitioner's principal office at Sivakasi; delivery alone is to be made at Virudhunagar. I am of the view that even if by mistake, a wrong instruction had been given to the driver of the vehicle to head towards Sivakasi. Still it would not really matter. The only questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies. That would require proper documentation. Therefore, in a case of this nature, the writ petitioner could not have evaded his statutory obligations in any manner. This aspect of the matter ought to have been taken note by the respondent. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner would pay a sum of ₹ 5,000/- as fine to the respondent. 14. The above submission of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner is recorded. By directing the writ petitioner to pay a sum of ₹ 5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand only] towards fine to the respondent, the orders impugned in this writ petition stands quashed. The respondent shall forthwith release the vehicle as well as the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
