9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 3,51,900/-as compounding/composition fees for the alleged commission of the offence. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner acted as a consignment agent for M/s.UniK Traders Bangalore an importer of spices who had imported spices through Tuticorin Port. The imported consignment was seized and detailed at the Villipuram Check Post on 7.8.2012 when it was being transported to the petitioner. The consignments were released pursuant to a conditional order dated 10.8.2012 of this court in W.P.No. 21980-81 of 2012. 3.By the impugned order, the 1st respondent was directed to quantify the tax to be paid by the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to pay the amount subject to final adjudication to be passed by the jurisdictiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner Tax Officer; (iv)Order dated 02.12.2014 made in W.P.No.31357 of 2014 - M/s.So.Ro.Import & Export Company Vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Check Post Officer; (v)Circular No.33/2014 dated 17.07.2014 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes; (vi)Order dated 14.11.2016 made in W.P.Nos.39662 & 33933 of 2016 - M/s.Jagadamba Traders Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer. 7.The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter and an additional counter on behalf of the respondents justifying the detention and the impugned order passed under section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 8.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. I have also peruse the documents produced before me. The im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Rule 157 (1) (a) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, it has been stated that the goods was being moved from Bangalore whereas the goods actually moved from Tuticorin. 10.It was further stated that having failed to adopt the provisions of section 5 (2) of the CST Act, 1956 being a pre-condition that the goods had to be sold when the goods are in the high seas, such disposal of the goods after regular import and in the circumstances where the seller being an unregistered dealer would amount to committing of an offence under section 71 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 11.The detention notices specifically called upon the petitioner to inform the owner of the goods to appear be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders, Bangalore, the petitioner filed the above mentioned two writ petitions to have the goods released. Thus, confirming the position of the respondents that there was a sale between M/s. Unik Traders, Bangalore and the petitioner and that the goods had not suffered tax on its sale. It would have been different ifM/s. Unik Traders, Bangalore had come forward and filed writ petitions and got the goods released subject to terms and conditions that may have been imposed at that stage. Thus, it stands concluded that the provisions of section 72 (1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 stood attracted in as much as there was a failure to pay tax and therefore in addition to tax payable, a sum of money not exceeding Rs. 2000/- or doub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re in the possession of such driver or other person in charge, for the purpose of ascertaining whether there has been any sale or purchase of the goods carried and in case there was sale or purchase of the goods carried, whether such a sale or purchase is liable to tax under the Act and if so- (a) whether such tax has been paid, or (b) whether the sale or purchase of the goods carried has, for the purpose of the payment of tax under this Act, been properly accounted for in the documents referred to in sub-section (5). 19.As per Section 67(3) of the Act, if, on such examination and inspection it appears - (a) (i) that the tax, if any payable under this Act in respect of the sale or purchase of the goods carried, has been paid, or (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such manner and to such authorities as may be prescribed, on behalf of the person liable to pay tax. It is only on payment of such tax, the detained goods can be released. 21.In fact the petitioner or the purported owner who importer as the case may be ought to have paid the tax and got the goods released. There is no necessity to file a writ petition. Instead, the petitioner espoused the cause of the purported owner (importer) by filing a writ petition directly before this court. It was altogether unnecessary in the light of the fact that the authorities acting under the act are duty bound to release the goods on payment of tax as per section 67 (4) Of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 22.Further, as per rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
