TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a writ petition to impugn the Goods Detention Notice dated 29.12.2016 and consequential Compounding Notice dated 31.12.2016. 2.1. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstance, I would have ordinarily returned the Writ Petition with a liberty to the Principal, i.e., Suzlon Energy Limited (in short 'SEL'), on whose behalf, the petitioner had acted, which led to the respondent passing the impugned orders to file a petition. 2.2. I have, however, allowed the prosecution of the Writ Petition, in view of the respondent's own conduct, to which I have made a brief reference hereafter. 2.3. In this behalf, one, notes, that the goods detention notice dated 29.12.2016 has been marked by the respondent only to the driver of the conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the petitioner's case that in one of the Forms i.e., Form bearing No.FKK28121600008657019, dated 28.12.2016, pertaining to trailer No.TN28AC9002, inadvertently, the basic price got reflected as Rs. 27,01,648/- as against Rs. 37,01,648/-. The table below will bring to fore the discrepancy, if, one were to compare the basic price given against Serial No.1, with that of which is set out vis-a-vis sernial Nos.2,3 and 4. Sl. No. Form KK No. Date Trailer Basic Price Duty Total 1 FKK28121600008657019 28-12-2016 TN28AC9002 27,01,648 2,85,952 29,87,600 2 FKK2812160000656259 28-12-2016 TN21AU3672 37,01,648 2,85,952 39,87,600 3 FKK28121600008655964 28-12-2016 TN20AK3556 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 29,87,599.50 as against a sum of Rs. 39,87,599.50. Furthermore, it was submitted that an observation had been made in the impugned order with regard to the identity of the consignment as well. 4.3 This apart, my attention was drawn to the fact that the respondent had also observed in the impugned order that the subject goods were not covered in the declaration made in Form M M by the driver, as required under Rule 15(19)(b) of TNVAT Rules, 2007. 4.4 Mr.Venkatesh, thus, submitted that the conclusion reached in the impugned compounding notice were sound and sustainable. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties for some time and perused the records. 6. What has clearly emerged and to that extent it is conceded, even b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he tax, in the impugned compounding notice, has been calculated at the rate of 14.5% and is, accordingly, pegged at Rs. 7,07,720/-. In addition thereto, compounding fee has also been levied at twice the rate of tax imposed, i.e., Rs. 14,15,440/-. 11. Having regard to the fact that even according to the respondent, the value of the subject goods was understated by Rs. 10,00,000/-, to my mind, interest of Revenue can be secured in the given facts and circumstances, if, the subject goods are directed to be released by imposing tax, for the moment, at the rate of 5% of understated value i.e., Rs. 10,00,000/-, with a personal bond, being furnished for the balance amount of tax claimed, albeit, without prejudice to the rights and contentions o....