Madras High Court
M/S. Nakoda Marbles & Granites vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 25 June, 2014
Author: B.Rajendran
Bench: B.Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.06.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.No.16402 of 2014 M/s. Nakoda Marbles & Granites Rep. by its Partner Mr.Harish Kumar No.46/104, Nelson Manickam Street Aminjikarai Chennai-29. ... Petitioner Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Checkpost Officer K.G.Chavadi Checkpost (Outcoming) Coimbatore-641 105. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in GDR No.187/2014-15, dated 18.06.2014 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to release the consignment detained on 18.06.2014.
For petitioner : Ms.C.Rekha Kumari For respondent : Mr.A.R.Jayaprathap Government Advocate (Taxes) O R D E R
By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.
2. The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned Goods Detention Notice passed by the respondent in GDR No.187/2014-15, dated 18.06.2014.
3. The petitioner is a registered dealer in marbles, granites etc., under Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. According to the petitioner, when the consignments moved from the premises of the petitioner to M/s. L&T Limited, Cochin, Kerala, the same were detained by the respondent on the ground that same serial number of two different invoices were available with the driver. According to the petitioner, the impugned consignments were duly covered by required documents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the goods have been transported with proper delivery notes and other documents as required under the Act and, therefore, the respondent ought not to have detained the goods. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has issued the notice of detention of goods on the ground that same serial number of two different invoices were available with the driver. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay one time payment of the entire tax amount assessed by the respondent, without prejudice to his right to file revision before the authority concerned.
5. On the above contention, this Court heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.
6. In an identical matter in WP.No.8202 of 2014, this Court directed the respondent therein to release the goods on payment of tax by the petitioner under protest.
7. In such view of the matter, without going into the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned in this Writ Petition, the respondent is directed to release the goods detained, to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner pays the entire tax amount, which will be assessed by the respondent as contemplated under the Act. It is made clear that the petitioner has to subject himself to the adjudication proceedings that may be initiated by the respondent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
paa 25.06.2014
Note to office:
Issue order copy by today itself.
Internet :Yes/No
B.RAJENDRAN,J
paa
To
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
and Checkpost Officer
K.G.Chavadi Checkpost (Outcoming)
Coimbatore-641 105.
WP No.16402 of 2014
25.06.2014