1.At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that he does not wish to press the writ petition against respondent nos.2 and 3. Accordingly, respondent nos.2 and 3 are dropped from the array of parties.
2.Accordingly, issue notice to the respondent no.1 (now the sole respondent). Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned counsels for parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
3.By virtue of this writ petition, challenge is laid to the goods detention notice dated 07.02.2017 (which is wrongly dated as 07.02.2016).
4.The petitioner claims that it had received an order from Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy for supply of boiler components and that, as per the instructions, the said goods had to be delivered to NTPC Limited, North Karanpura STPP, Tandwa, Chatra, Jharkhand. 4.1.The details, with respect to the invoice number, dates and values, are given hereunder: Invoice No. Date Value in Rs.
31.12.2016 12,24,615/-
30.01.2017 5,62,570/-
5.Admittedly, while the invoices qua subject goods were generated on 31.12.2016 and 30.01.2017, they were moved only on 07.02.2017. 5.1. It is, in these circumstances, that the subject goods were detained by the respondent.
6.Learned counsel for the petitioner says that there were several reasons for delay which, inter alia, included: break-down of the transport vehicle; the Pongal festival, and unavailability of a regular lorry for carrying the consignment to Jharkhand. 6.1.It is, therefore, in sucm, the contention of the petitioner that the transaction was genuine and, thus, the subject goods ought not to have been detained.
7.Notwithstanding the aforesaid circumstances obtaining in the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner, says that in order to expedite the release of the subject goods, the petitioner would be willing to pay one time tax, without prejudice to its rights and contentions.
8.Mr.Venkatesh, who appears on behalf of the respondent says that if one time tax is paid, the subject goods could be released to the petitioner.
9.Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the fact, that the petitioner offers to pay one time tax, I am inclined to direct the release of subject goods. Consequently, upon payment of one time tax, by the petitioner, equivalent to the sum of Rs.2,98,013/-, the respondent will, forthwith, release the subject goods to the petitioner.
10.Needless to say, the payment of tax by the petitioner will be without prejudice to its rights and contentions. The petitioner will also have the right to assail, not only the imposition of tax, but also the imposition of compounding fee, as reflected in the impugned notice, albeit, in accordance with law.
11.The writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms. Consequently, the connected pending applications are also closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
23.02.2017 pri Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No Note: Issue order copy on 23.02.2017.
To The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Special Roving Squad (Enforcement) Cuddalore.
RAJIV SHAKDHER,J.
pri W.P.No.4605 of 2017 And W.M.P.Nos.4830 and 4831 of 2017 23.02.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in