Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Maq.Equipment vs 3 The Commercial Tax Officer

Madras High Court|14 February, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

1.Issue Notice. Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsels for parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
2.The petitioner is aggrieved by the detention of the subject goods and accordingly, challenge is the goods detention notice dated 20.01.2017.
3.The record shows that the petitioner has also been served with the compounding notice dated 21.01.2017. By virtue of the compounding notice, the petitioner has been mulcted with tax at the rate of 14.5% amounting to Rs.5,46,059/-. Furthermore, compounding fee of Rs.16,38,177/- has been imposed on the petitioner.
4.The petitioner's stand is that he was required to sell the subject goods, i.e., Air Compressor to a person by name, PR.Rajenthiran and that for this purpose, he had raised a Purchase Order on an entity by the name, Chicago Pneumatic Construction Equipment. For this purpose, my attention has been drawn to the Purchase Order dated 11.01.2017, raised on Chicago Pneumatic Construction Equipment, a division of Atlas Copco India Limited and also the tax invoice dated 19.01.2017, raised by the petitioner on Mr.PR.Rajenthiran.
5.A perusal of the detention notice shows that the subject goods which are detained for the following reasons:
An Aircompressor transported from Pondicherry to Tiruchengode. The consignees TIN. No. Not mentioned in the invoice. Further the consignor Tvl. ATLAS COPCO (India) Pondicherry has not raised any sale invoice. This transaction is suspected. Hence goods detained along with vehicle at Ulundurpet Tollgate.
6.Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the perusal of the tax invoice would show that the requisite Central Sales Tax has been paid.
7.On being queried, learned counsel for the petitioner does concede, that the sales invoice that was issued by Chicago Pneumatic Construction Equipment to the petitioner was not available with the transporter. According to the petitioner, the transaction in issue is an Inter-State sale transaction and hence, is not amenable to local tax.
7.1. Having said so, learned counsel submits that in order to expedite the release of the detained goods, i.e., the Air Compressor, the petitioner will furnish security in the form of a Bank Guarantee for an amount equivalent to the tax imposed.
8.Mr.Venkatesh, who appears for the respondents says that, if, security is given in the form of Bank Guarantee, the detained goods i.e., Air Compressor would be released to the petitioner.
9.I must indicate herein that the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that offer to furnish security is made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner to challenge both the levy of tax and the imposition of compounding fee.
10.Accordingly, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, in my view, the writ petition can be disposed of based on the following directions:
(i)Upon the petitioner furnishing the bank guarantee of a Nationalized Bank/ Scheduled Bank, equivalent to a sum of Rs.5,46,059/-, the detained goods, i.e., the Air Compressor will, forthwith, be released to the petitioner. The bank guarantee furnished will be kept alive till further orders of the concerned authority.
(ii)The submission of bank guarantee, if any, will not come in the way of the petitioner challenging the imposition of tax and compounding fee as indicated in the compounding fee notice dated 21.01.2017.
11.The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforementioned terms. Consequently, the connected pending application is also closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
14.02.2017 pri/sl Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No Note: Issue order copy on 15.02.2017.
To 1 The Commissioner,Commercial Taxes Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai  600 005.
2 The Deputy Commissioner,Commercial Taxes Department, Enforcement Wing, Villupuram District.
3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Roving Squad,Cuddalore.
RAJIV SHAKDHER,J.
Pri/sl W.P.No.3592 of 2017 And W.M.P.No.3621 of 2017 14.02.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Maq.Equipment vs 3 The Commercial Tax Officer

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
14 February, 2017