Madras High Court
M/S.Attur Steels (P) Ltd vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 18 July, 2014
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18-7-2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN WRIT PETITION No.19233 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 M/s.Attur Steels (P) Ltd., Represented by its Director Sy No.97/P, 30, Sabmangala Gate Kempegowda Nagar Samandur (Post) Anekkal Taluk Bangalore 562 106. .. Petitioner vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Check Point II Thoppur-In Check Post .. Respondent Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in GDR No.8513/2014-2015 dated 15.7.2014, and quashing the same and further directing the respondent to release the 19.890 Mts of HSD Bars along with the goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA 06 D 1290 without insisting on the payment of one time tax and two times as compounding fee. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar For Respondent : Mr.V.Haribabu AGP (T) ORDER
By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2.The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, would state that the goods viz. Iron and steel and items thereof HSD Bars, were moved by way of local sale by raising Invoice No.564 dated 15.7.2014, to its customer in the State of Karnataka in a vehicle bearing Registration No.KA 06 D 1290, and the goods were detained by the respondent on the ground that they were transported from Tamil Nadu by using inter-state invoice to evade tax payable in the State of Tamil Nadu.
3.The petitioner in response to the said notice dated 15.7.2014, submitted his reply stating that the goods have been transported from the petitioner company, which has been registered under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act with TIN No.29950631978, SY No.97/p, Sabamangala Gate, Samandhur, Anekal (Tk) Bangalore, Karnataka, to M/s.Dinesh Enterprises, which is also registered under Karnataka VAT Act with TIN No.29280133912, No:690, 10th Main, 80 ft. Road, Vinayaga Layout, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore, Karnataka and since it is a shortest route, the goods were transported through this route and therefore, the stand taken by the respondent that the said movement has been done to avoid tax payable in Tamil Nadu, on the face of it, is unsustainable.
4.The petitioner along with the said representation, has also enclosed on line E-Sugam for transporting the goods from their Office to the buyer's place as per Karnataka VAT Rules, and also the invoice for their reference and therefore, prayed for release of the goods. Since the representation submitted by the petitioner, has not been favoured with any kind of response, he has filed this writ petition praying for the writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned notice dated 15.7.2014, and further direct the respondent to release the goods detained, without insisting on payment of onetime tax and two times compounding fee.
5.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the representation to the impugned notice submitted by the petitioner, is self-explanatory and it is not the intention of the petitioner to evade payment of tax and however, the respondent herein has not at all taken into consideration the representation and has not chosen to pass any orders thereon.
6.It is the further submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that this Court vide orders dated 17.12.2012, made in W.P.No.33982/2012 (Mobile Stores Ltd. Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai and another), and dated 25.3.2014, made in W.P.No.8778/2014, (M/s.The State Trading Corporation of India Limited Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai.), considered the similar issue and quashed the impugned orders by directing the official respondent therein/Commercial Tax Officer to release the goods subject to payment of certain sum as contemplated under the Act, and also made it clear that the petitioner therein has to subject himself to adjudication proceedings that may be initiated by the official respondent therein, and he would submit that in the light of the facts and circumstances, similar order can be passed.
7.Per contra, Mr.V.Haribabu, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondent, would contend that the only intention of the petitioner is to evade payment of tax in Tamil Nadu and though the goods have to be transported within the State of Karnataka, unnecessarily, they have entered into this State and the said fact has been taken into consideration by the respondent and has rightly issued the impugned notice. It is the further submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the petitioner may be directed to pay the tax as demanded in the impugned notice, and so far as the compounding fee is concerned, he may be directed to furnish bank guarantee.
8.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, while answering the said submission, would submit that without prejudice to his rights and contentions, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay onetime tax and in respect of compounding fee, he is ready to furnish personal bond and has also drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 67(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and would submit that as per the said provision, if the tax is paid or the security is furnished, then the goods so detained shall be released forthwith and in the light of the same, though there is no necessity on his part to pay the compounding fee, since the goods have been detained so longer, he is ready and willing to furnish personal bond for the compounding fee, without prejudice to his rights.
9.This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record, and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, is disposing of the writ petition by passing the following order.
10.The petitioner without prejudice to his rights and contentions, shall pay a sum of Rs.50,440/- (Rupees fifty thousand four hundred and forty only) being onetime tax, as demanded in the impugned notice, and insofar as the compounding fee of Rs.1,00,880/-, he shall offer personal bond to the satisfaction of the respondent, both within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such compliance, the respondent is directed to release the goods detained, in terms of the impugned notice, forthwith. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.
18-7-2014 Index: yes/no Note to Office:
Issue order copy on 21.7.2014 nsv To:
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Check Point II Thoppur-In Check Post M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
nsv W.P.No.19233 of 2014 Dt: 18 -7-2014