2017 (4) TMI 539

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nue. 1.1.With the consent of learned counsel for parties, the writ appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2.This is an appeal, whereby challenge is laid to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.03.2017. 3.Mr.Annamalai, says, having regard to the circumstances obtaining in the present case, he would argue the matter based on the record filed before this Court. 4.The appellant had approached the learned Single Judge by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, to lay challenge to the goods detention notice dated 18.02.2017, passed by the respondent. In sum, the appellant had sought release of the goods. 4.1.The learned Single Judge, however, disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cer, a role which is not contemplated for him under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 ( in short 'TNVAT Act'). 6.In order to adjudicate upon the appeal, the following brief facts are required to be noticed: 6.1.It appears that the appellant, who is a dealer in solar power panels and related equipment and, is registered under the Karnataka VAT Act, had imported 3198 pieces of Solar Panels from a chinese entity, namely, M/s.Shandong Linuo Photovoltaic Hi-Tech Co. Ltd. The goods, so imported, were discharged at the Chennai Port and were, thereafter, cleared from the Customs by the appellant's clearing and forwarding agent. The goods were cleared on 09.02.2017. It appears that, in and about the said date, i.e. on 10.02.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hich was rendered to the respondent. 6.4.As indicated at the outset, it was the stand of the appellant that the subject transaction was an inter-state sale, which had emanated in the State of Karnataka and therefore, the goods were not amenable to local tax. It was also contended that, in so far as Central Sales Tax is concerned, it was payable in the State of Karnataka. 6.5.The respondent, however, via the impugned notice, rejected the stand taken by the appellant and proceeded, instead, to impose tax, as if, a local sale transaction had been entered into between the appellant and BCPL. Furthermore, the respondent came to the conclusion that the appellant had employed fraud and therefore, penalty had to be levied. Consequently, penal....