Inter-State sales taxation limits prevent destination-state detention and compounding where tax was already paid in the originating State.

Where a consignment is an inter-State movement from the originating State and has already suffered tax there, the destination State cannot assume taxing or compounding jurisdiction merely by issuing detention or compounding notices. The text also notes that when the detention challenge goes to the very authority to proceed, the petitioner need not be driven to an alternate revisional remedy. On the stated facts, the transport documents required for detention were available, Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act was satisfied, and Sections 9(1) and 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act placed levy and collection in the originating State. The notices were therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the revisional authority despite the challenge that the impugned detention and compounding notices were without jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the Tamil Nadu authorities could levy tax and compounding fee or detain the goods when the consignment was an inter-State movement from Telangana and the goods were accompanied by the prescribed documents.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the revisional authority despite the challenge that the impugned detention and compounding notices were without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The availability of an alternate remedy was considered in the light of the nature of the dispute. The challenge was not merely factual, but went to the authority of the respondents to proceed at all, because the petitioner asserted that the transaction was already taxed in the State from which movement commenced. Where the very foundation of the proceedings is lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner need not be driven to a statutory revision.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not required to pursue the alternate remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tamil Nadu authorities could levy tax and compounding fee or detain the goods when the consignment was an inter-State movement from Telangana and the goods were accompanied by the prescribed documents.

Analysis: Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was satisfied, as the goods were stated to have been accompanied by the relevant transport documents. The transaction was accepted to be an inter-State movement from Telangana to Tamil Nadu, and it was also not disputed that tax had already been suffered in Telangana. In such a situation, Section 9(1) and Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 place the levy and collection at the State from which the movement commenced. On that footing, the impugned detention and compounding notices could not survive in Tamil Nadu.

Conclusion: The detention and compounding notices were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, and the impugned notices were set aside because the disputed consignment formed part of an inter-State transaction taxable at the originating State, not in Tamil Nadu.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an inter-State movement has already suffered tax in the originating State and the transport documents required by the local detention provision are available, the destination State cannot assume taxing or compounding jurisdiction over the transaction.

---