Heard Mr.P.Rajkumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
2. The petitioner, who is a contractor registered as a dealer under the provisions of Delhi Value Added Tax is before this Court challenging the Goods Detention Notice. The petitioner imported Deepsea Matdrill for being used for drilling operation in offshore India against the locations released by the ONGC. The imports were effected from China and Singapore via Chennai SeaPort. When the goods were being moved from Chennai Port to Kakinada, they were detained by the respondent by issuing the impugned detention notice stating that the petitioner is not a registered dealer under the provisions of TNVAT Act and they are sending the materials without TIN number, work order and other related documents. The petitioner has produced a declaration signed by the Deputy General Manager (Drilling), ONGC, Mumbai, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, wherein the ONGC has clearly stated as to what purpose the petitioner has imported the said products and the ONGC has undertaken to pay customs duty, fine and penalty, that may be payable, if any of the conditions of the Notification No.12/2012 dated 17.03.2012 as amended by notification No.12/2016 custom dated 01.03.2016 are not complied with by the petitioner or ONGC. Thus, there could be no doubt regarding the genuinity of the import and the purpose of which the equipment has been imported from China/Singapore. The project for which purpose the drilling equipment has been imported has clearly certified as to where the goods have to be taken for operations. In such circumstances, the question of insisting upon the petitioner to register themselves under the TNVAT Act is wholly illegal and that could not have been a ground for detention of the goods. The respondent has not disbelieved the import transaction nor can they disbelieve the solemn undertaking given by ONGC before the customs authorities. The import documents filed by the petitioner has not been disputed by respondent. Thus, the impugned proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.
3. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed and the respondent is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 7,78,720/- collected as one time tax and Rs.2,000/-, which was collected as compounding fee. The refund shall be effected to the petitioner by the respondent within 12 (twelve) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.09.2017 sai\nv To The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Check Post Officer) Puzhal Check Post, Chennai 600 006.
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
sai/nv WP.No.18969 of 2017 Dated: 05.09.2017