https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395467 Detention of goods at a check post was said to be unjustified where the goods were moved directly to a site office for future installation, no sale had yet occurred, and the supplier's invoice showed tax had already been charged. On that basis, the detention-based demand for tax and the compounding demand under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were not fully sustainable. However, the failure to obtain separate registration for the site office as an additional place of business remained a statutory default, supporting only the limited penal consequence contemplated under the Act. The commentary states that the compounding amount should be confined to the prescribed ceiling, with excess collection refunded and tax collection adjusted against liability. en-us Tue, 19 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Dec 2020 10:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395467 Detention of goods at a check post was said to be unjustified where the goods were moved directly to a site office for future installation, no sale had yet occurred, and the supplier's invoice showed tax had already been charged. On that basis, the detention-based demand for tax and the compounding demand under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were not fully sustainable. However, the failure to obtain separate registration for the site office as an additional place of business remained a statutory default, supporting only the limited penal consequence contemplated under the Act. The commentary states that the compounding amount should be confined to the prescribed ceiling, with excess collection refunded and tax collection adjusted against liability. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 19 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395467