GREENS AGENCY Vs. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the goods detention notice Nos. 535 to 538 dated 12.6.2015/ 13.6.2015 and the compounding notices in G.D. Nos. 535/2015 -16 to 538/2015 -16 dated 14.6.2015 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement), Roving Squad, Vellore, the respondent herein, the petitioner has brought these writ petitions, inter alia, contending that the impugned goods detention notices are illegal, since the goods were accompanied by proper documents such as sale bill, as required under Section 64(3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in all matters submitted that the petitioner being a dealer in edible oil and a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act (for short ''the TNVAT Act'') with TIN No. 33141885549, in its usual course of business, after purchasing RBD palm oil, transported the same to its own business place along with the proper documents viz., sale bill as prescribed under Section 67(5) of the TNVAT Act. Nonetheless, when the goods were in transit from Chennai to Paramathy, the respondent intercepted the vehicles and detained the goods along with the vehicles for the reason that the vehicles travelled in an unrelated route, namely, that the vehicles route being Chennai, Walaja, Vellore, Ambur (NH 46) and Namakkal, on the contrary, the vehicles had moved in an unrelated route, namely, Chennai, Walaja, Ranipet, Muthukadai and this apart, the vehicles crossed more than 5 kilometres from the diversion point. Contending further that the allegation of the respondent is factually wrong, the learned counsel also submitted that the drivers never took the vehicles in a diversified route. The reason being now that four way National Highways is formed and over bridges also erected in several junctions, if one particular junction is missed or wrongly diverted, then, by travelling in a different route only, the vehicles can reach the specified route. Therefore, the vehicles had travelled in the right route only, since after Muthukadai, again the said route will join the main road.

(3.) CONTINUING his arguments, he submitted that the jurisdiction of the check post officer under Section 67(2)(3) is to see that whether the goods are accompanied with the documents as prescribed under Section 67(5) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. Even if the respondent had any doubt in the said documents, he can write to the assessing officer of the concerned dealer to verify the same in the course of assessment and for that purpose the goods cannot be detained. In the present cases, as the petitioner has been sending the goods along with the requisite correct documents, namely, sale bills as prescribed under Section 64(3), the goods in question ought not to have been detained on flimsy reasons, as this would seriously affect not only the petitioner's business, but also the growth of economy in the area. He also submitted that the respondent is not the assessing officer to issue the compounding proceedings, for the reason that before issuing the compounding proceedings, it has to be decided whether the dealer has evaded payment of tax or not and this apart, it has to be done by the regular assessing officer and not by the check post officer. In addition thereto, the compounding of offence being an option, the respondent cannot force the petitioner to opt for compounding of the offence. Further no notice was issued by the respondent asking whether the petitioner was willing to compound the alleged offence. For all these reasons, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for quashing of the impugned goods detention notice Nos. 535 to 538 dated 12.6.2015/13.6.2015 and the compounding notices in G.D. Nos. 535/2015 - 16 to 538/2015 -16 dated 14.6.2015.