2020 (5) TMI 500

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Roving Squad, Chengalpet, Enforcement South Chennai and for consequential direction for a refund of ? 2, 74, 048/-paid by the petitioner as the compounding amount/fee for release of the goods detained vide Goods Detention Notice No 41/2013-14 in Form No. 41 dated 2.9.2013. 2. The petitioner had purchased a wind energy gearbox from M/s.Siemens Limited from their factory at Sriperumbadur Taluk, Tamil Nadu and had directly consigned to a site office from where the wind energy gearbox was to be installed for a customer of theirs along with the goods equipments. While the consignment was in transit it was intercepted and detained at the Paranoor Check Post, near Chengalpet District on the ground that on verification of the document produced at ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sus Joint Commercial Tax Officer (1967) 19 STC 349; iv.Supreme Industries Ltd Versus The Deputy commercial tax Officer And Others 7.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Though the present writ petition is of the year 2013, the respondents have not filed any counter. 8.However, the learned counsel for the respondent on instructions have submitted that all rules and regulations, notifications clarifications orders made or issued under any of the provisions of the TNGST Act, 1959 will continue to be in force insofar as long as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 9.It is thereforesubmitted that under Rule 53 of the TNGST Rules, 1959, the Assistant Commercial Tax ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of the goods on the assumption that the petitioner had already effected sale and that no tax was paid when the goods were in transit was is purely based on the assumption, presumption and conjecture. As and when the petitioner effects sale, the petitioner would be liable to pay tax. 16.In the era where there was scope for availing of input tax credit on the incidence of tax, it can hardly be assumed that the petitioner would not be paying tax as and when sale takes place. 17.The manufacturer's invoice filed along with the typeset indicates that the supplier-manufacturer had charged a sum of ? 1,3,024.05.This amount is available as input tax credit for being set off as input tax credit. Further, when the petitioner sells the same, there....