R K M ELECTRICALS Vs. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER & COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES; DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.K.Soundararajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Manokaran Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. With the consent of either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

(2.) The petitioner in this writ petition, seeks to challenge the release order issued by the detention officer, i.e., the second respondent, dated 11.4.2016. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.2,29,680/- and the goods in question have been released.

(3.) The issue raised before this court is that the amount paid by the petitioner is towards tax and the second respondent erroneously adjusted the same as if it was the penalty / compounding fee, for which he has no jurisdiction. To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 67(3)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) and submits that the officer is entitled to only call upon the petitioner to pay the tax and there is no power to levy the penalty. In order to appreciate the said argument, it would be necessary to take note of the said provision, which reads as under :