2016 (12) TMI 1306

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in G.D.No.1631/2016-17 dated 04.12.2016 and the subsequent compounding notice dated 05.12.2016 of the first respondent and quash the same and direct the first respondent to release the detained goods Vehicle No.TN 28 AF 9496 dated 04.12.2016." 3. In order to adjudicate upon the Writ Petition, the following facts are required to be noticed. 3.1. The petitioner claims to be a registered dealer on the file of the second respondent. It is the petitioner's case that he has been regularly filing his returns and paying the taxes owed by him. 3.2. It appears that the petitioner, during the course of his business, had purchased Tin Oil Seeds from....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted 05.12.2016. 3.9. As indicated above, both the Detention Notice as well as the Compounding Notice have been assailed by the petitioner. 4. By virtue of the Compounding Notice, the petitioner has been called upon to pay tax, which has been pegged at Rs. 54,310/-. Furthermore, the petitioner has been given the opportunity to compound the offence by paying the compounding fee equivalent to Rs. 1,08,620/- ; which is twice amount that the petitioner has been called upon to pay as tax. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the reasons given in the Detention Notice for detaining the goods are not sustainable. For this purpose learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the Circular dated 17.07.2014, issued by the P....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... extracted herein below: "1. It has been brought to the notice of the undersigned that, in one case, a consignment of cotton yarn was intercepted by a Roving Squad. The consignment was accompanied with proper invoice. However, on verification, it was found by the R.S. officers that the consignees have not filed monthly return for the month of April and May 2014. This was treated as an offence liable under Sec.72(1)(a) of TNVAT Act and tax payable and two times of tax payable as C. Fee was collected before the release of goods. 2. The above movement of goods accompanied with a valid invoice satisfies the provision of Sec.68 of TNVAT Act and consequently, there is no offence falling under Sec.71(5)(a) of TNVAT Act. Composition of offence ....