https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395463 The check-post officer was treated as competent to detain and verify goods where movement into the State was suspected to involve a taxable transaction and supporting records needed scrutiny, and the availability of an alternate statutory remedy did not negate that power. By contrast, a compounding fee demand under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act could not be finally sustained where the validity of registration and the alleged evasion remained disputed on facts; such matters required determination by the competent authority after hearing the assessee. The detention and check-post action were left intact, while the fee demand was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration on merits. en-us Tue, 19 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Sep 2020 12:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395463 The check-post officer was treated as competent to detain and verify goods where movement into the State was suspected to involve a taxable transaction and supporting records needed scrutiny, and the availability of an alternate statutory remedy did not negate that power. By contrast, a compounding fee demand under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act could not be finally sustained where the validity of registration and the alleged evasion remained disputed on facts; such matters required determination by the competent authority after hearing the assessee. The detention and check-post action were left intact, while the fee demand was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration on merits. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 19 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395463