JAKSON ENGINEERS LTD. Vs. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in all these six writ petitions are one and the same, viz., M/s.Jakson Engineers Limited and the writ petitions pertain to the same transaction done by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed W.P.Nos.11420 to 11422 of 2017 challenging the Goods Detention Notices dated 24.04.2017. Since immediately thereafter Compounding Notices dated 25.04.2017 were issued, the petitioner has filed W.P.Nos.12457 to 12459 of 2017. Therefore, technically, W.P.Nos.11420 to 11422 of 2017 have become redundant, since all issued have been canvassed by the petitioner in W.P.Nos.12457 to 12459 of 2017. Therefore, these writ petitions are taken for disposal first.

(2.) 1 W.P. Nos. 12457 to 12459 of 2017 have been filed praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the Compounding Notices dated 25.04.2017. 2. 2 Before examining the reasons assigned by the respondent for issuing the Compounding Notices, it may be relevant to take note of the grounds of detention contained in the Detention Notices dated 24.04.2017, which are impugned in W.P.Nos.11420 to 11422 of 2017. Three consignment of Solar Panels had moved from Kolkatta to be taken to Neyveli for a project of Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The respondent detained the consignments on 24.04.2017 stating that on verification of the invoices it is seen that M/s. Sova Solar Limited, Durgapur, West Bengal, have sold the goods to the petitioner, whose corporate office is located at Greater Noida, but, did not raise any invoice or produce Form JJ in the name of the petitioner and therefore, the respondent has suspected their transaction and detained the goods. Immediately thereafter, the impugned Compounding Notices were issued and on perusal of the same, it appears that the reasons assigned therein are slightly different. 2. 3 In the compounding notices, the respondent stated that during the course of lorry check at Vikravandi toll gate on 24.04.2017, the goods vehicle were intercepted by the Enforcement Officers to ascertain the genuineness of the goods loaded in the goods vehicle. The goods loaded in the vehicle with solar photo voltaic pallets and the goods were sold by M/s.Sova Solar Limited, Durgapur, West Bengal to M/s. Jackson Engineers Limited, Greater Noida. It is further stated that the goods were detained and the petitioner was directed to pay the tax and compounding fee. 2. 4 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.1572 of 2017, which was disposed of by order dated 20.01.2017, directing the respondent to release the detained goods upon bank guarantee being furnished equivalent to the tax imposed in the compounding notice and this will be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to lay a challenge both to the imposition of tax and compounding fee levied via the Detention Notice dated 04.01.2017. Based on the direction issued by this court, the goods, which were detained, were released on 08.02.2017. The respondent would further submit that at the time of verification of records the driver of the vehicle produced the Goods Consignment Note, Delivery Challan of Jackson Engineers Limited, Greater Noida and Tax Invoices. 2. 5 After referring to Section 2(43) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Section 5(1) of the TNVAT Act, the respondent would state that on verification of invoices, buyer is Jackson Engineers Limited, Greater Noida to execute the work contract in Tamil Nadu, for which, registration has to be obtained under the TNVAT Act and in the invoices produced by the driver of Tamil Nadu, TIN number is available. 2. 6 It was further submitted that the consignment solar photo voltaic modules, which moved from Greater Noida is a taxable commodity @ 14.5% under TNVAT Act and being the first sales to Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Tamil Nadu, tax liability arises within the State and the petitioner has paid the tax due thereon to the Government of Tamil Nadu. Thus, it was alleged that M/s.Jackson Engineers Limited, Greater Noida with an intention to evade tax have adopted the modus and therefore, it was alleged that they have committed the offence under sections 70(1)(c), 71(3)(d), 71(3)(e) and 71(5)(a) of the TNVAT Act and therefore, proposed to levy compounding fees. The respondent after referring to form JJ, permitted the goods as unclassified items and levied tax at 14.5%.

(3.) Heard Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record.