SAKTHI ENTERPRISES Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the goods in question, which had been imported from Hongkong, had been cleared by OPMS Clearing and Forwarding Agency Private Limited, from the customs. When the imported consignment was being transported through a local transporter, namely, PMVS Transport, Chennai, to be taken to Om Logistics Limited for the onward transportation of the same to Delhi, the container, containing the goods in question, had been intercepted by the second respondent, at Madhavaram, on the presumption that the goods were being moved to a private godown.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax amount of Rs.1,18,332/- and the compounding fee of Rs.3,54,996/-, as the goods in question had been taken for off-loaded in a local godown, for local sales. THE petitioner, who is a registered dealer at Delhi, cannot deliver the goods in question at the private godown, within the State of Tamil Nadu, in violation of Section 69 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. THEreby, he had committed an offence, under Section 71(3)(e) of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. As such the petitioner is liable to pay the tax, as prescribed in the impugned notice, as well as the compounding fee, under Section 72(1) (a) of the said Act.