2015 (7) TMI 505

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petitions, inter alia, contending that the impugned goods detention notices are illegal, since the goods were accompanied by proper documents such as sale bill, as required under Section 64(3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in all matters submitted that the petitioner being a dealer in edible oil and a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act (for short ''the TNVAT Act'') with TIN No.33141885549, in its usual course of business, after purchasing RBD palm oil, transported the same to its own business place along with the proper documents viz., sale bill as prescribed under Section 67(5) of the TNVAT Act. Nonetheless, when the goods were in transit from C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not receptive. On the contrary, presuming that the petitioner has committed a serious crime, the respondent detained the vehicles by issuing the goods detention notice  Nos.535 to 538 dated 12.6.2015/13.6.2015 followed by the compounding notices in G.D.Nos.535/2015-16 to 538/2015-16 dated 14.6.2015 mentioning therein that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 71(3)(d)(e), 71(5)(a) & 71(8) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. 4. Continuing his arguments, he submitted that the jurisdiction of the check post officer under Section 67(2)(3) is to see that whether the goods are accompanied with the documents as prescribed under Section 67(5) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. Even if the respondent had any doubt in the said documents, he can wri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioner, claiming to be regular in sending the goods, ought not to have diverted from the regular route, namely, when the vehicles route being Chennai, Walaja, Vellore, Ambur (NH46) and Namakkal, the vehicles had moved in an unrelated route, namely, Chennai, Walaja, Ranipet, Muthukadai. That apart, the vehicles crossed more than 5 kilometres from the diversion point, therefore, the respondent has rightly detained the goods along with the vehicles, on the ground that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 71(3)(d)(e), 71(5)(a) and 71(8) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The petitioner was also given an opportunity to compound the offence under Section 72(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act, hence, no interference can be called for with the imp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ued the impugned goods detention notices. Secondly, as contended by Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai that the vehicles crossed more than 5 kilometres from the diversion point, the respondent has not indicated that there was any deviation in the vehicles route.  Admittedly, in the present cases,  it appears that the vehicles moved from Chennai, Walaja, Vellore, Ambur (NH46) to reach Namakkal along with the sale bills for the goods laden in the vehicles. While so, even if it is presumed that the vehicles had taken a diversified route i.e., 5 kilometres from the regular route, the Additional Government Pleader for the respondent has miserably failed to place  before this Court any provision to justify the passing of the goods detention no....