https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187728 The Madras HC held that the first respondent lacked jurisdiction to impose and collect a compounding fee for release of detained goods. Earlier release of the goods under judicial directions did not confer any authority on that respondent to levy the fee, because any action for the alleged violation, including assessment or other lawful proceedings, lay with the assessing authority, namely the second respondent. As the first respondent was not empowered to demand the compounding fee, the impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside. The second respondent was left free to proceed in accordance with law. en-us Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Nov 2016 10:28:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187728 The Madras HC held that the first respondent lacked jurisdiction to impose and collect a compounding fee for release of detained goods. Earlier release of the goods under judicial directions did not confer any authority on that respondent to levy the fee, because any action for the alleged violation, including assessment or other lawful proceedings, lay with the assessing authority, namely the second respondent. As the first respondent was not empowered to demand the compounding fee, the impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside. The second respondent was left free to proceed in accordance with law. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187728