2017 (3) TMI 1424

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 04.08.2016, annexed at Annexure : D to the petition, under which, the petitioner's truck alongwith goods in the nature of ceramic tiles in transport came to be detained. The reason cited is to verify whether the petitioner had discharged tax liability for the prior period. 2. The respondents have filed reply dated 19.08.2016, in which, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner of Rs. 1,59,45,788/, the competent authority has passed a separate order dated 10.08.2016, attaching the petitioner's goods lying at the godown which valued at Rs. 1,60,58,600/. Section 68(4) of the Act reads as under: (4) (a)If the officer-in-charge of the check-post or barrier is of the opinion that - (i) goods under transport are not covered by goods vehicle record, trip-sheet or l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....session or control, the goods [xxx] are seized. None of the grounds on which an officer-in-charge of a check-post can seize the goods and detain the vehicle include verification of payment of past taxes. It is true that under section 45(1) of the VAT Act, the competent authority has the power to provisionally attach the goods of a dealer pending any proceedings for assessment or reassessment if h....