Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2010 (12) TMI 1110

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, "the State Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Central Act") on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Nungambakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 6168 of 2005 is a Medical Diagnostic Centre (hereinafter referred to as, "the K.G.S. Scan"). The said K.G.S. Scan is primarily and essentially in the field of carrying out diagnostic tests, such as scan and MRI as suggested by the doctors for further course of medical diagnosis and treatment. Admittedly, under Invoice No. 1810008699, dated March 30, 2002, Siemens Limited sold a machine known as "magnatum consorto syste....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner. The second respondent recorded the statement from a person belonging to the K.G.S. Scan to the effect that they should have registered themselves as casual dealer and then, to have sold the goods. Ultimately, a goods detention notice under notice No. 46/0506, dated July 3, 2005 was issued by the second respondent, thereby detaining the goods under section 42 of the State Act on the ground that the, consignor, viz., the K.G.S. Scan, Madurai, had sold the scanning machine without raising invoice and that Siemens Limited, Chennai has transported the goods mentioned in the invoice dated July 2, 2005 without any purchase bill from the K.G.S. Scan. The second respondent ordered the detention of the goods pending further enquiries as contemp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s not authenticated by any invoice and since there was tax evasion, the detention notice dated July 3, 2005 as well as the order dated July 7, 2005 came to be passed. Though several grounds have been raised in the writ petitions and though arguments have been advanced at length by the learned counsel appearing on either side, in my considered opinion, the question involved in these two writ petitions falls within a very narrow campus. Though it was argued that the K.G.S. Scan is not a dealer and the sale of the goods made by the K.G.S. Scan to the Siemens Limited will not amount to business, I do not go into these questions, because they are not relevant for the purpose of deciding these two writ petitions. In my considered opinion, it wo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te Act was paid. According to the K.G.S. Scan, since the K.G.S. Scan is neither a dealer nor the transaction amounts to business, the said K.G.S. Scan is not liable to pay any tax under the State Act. To the contrary, it is the contention of the respondents that the K.G.S. Scan is a dealer as defined under the Act and the sale of the equipment made in favour of the Siemens Limited amounts to business as defined under the Act and, therefore, the said K.G.S. Scan is liable for tax to be paid under the State Act. In my considered opinion, this disputed question need not be gone into in these writ petitions. Assuming that there is tax evasion in this regard by the K.G.S. Scan under the provisions of the Act, it is always open for the commercia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns Limited, the detention order passed against the said company is not sustainable. Therefore, consequently, the order dated July 7, 2005 imposing the compounding fees is also liable to be set aside. But the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that at the time when the vehicle was checked, appropriate records were not available with the transporter and that is the reason why, the detention notice dated July 3, 2005 came to be issued and the consequential order dated July 7, 2005 came to be passed. In my considered opinion, the said contention cannot be countenanced at all. A perusal of the statement recorded from a representative of the K.G.S. Scan would go to show that at the time of checking, the invoice regarding the sale ma....