Commercial Tax Officer, v. M/S. Tamil Nadu Logistics,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 11.02.2016 Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.KIRUBAKARAN Writ Appeal No.144 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.1919 of 2016 The Commercial Tax Officer, Roving Squad-III, Enforcement (North), Chennai - 600 006.

...

Appellant/ Respondent

Versus

M/s. Tamil Nadu Logistics, rep. by its Proprietor, No.12, Broadway, Chennai - 600 108.

...

Respondent/ Petitioner Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the Order made in W.P.No.2286 of 2016 dated 22.01.2016. Prayer in W.P.No.2286 of 2016 Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent who has no powers to detain goods which are not in physical moment from one place to another but kept in the lorry godown in his proceedings in G.D.No.6179 dated 11.01.2016 and quash this detention order as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the TNVAT Act and direct the respondent to release the goods. For Appellant :

Mr.Kanmani Annamalai, Spl. G.P. (T) For Respondent:

Mr.C.Baktha Siromoni.

JUDGMENT

V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J The Commercial Tax Officer has come up with the above appeal, challenging the order of the learned Judge directing the release of the goods detained by the Squad.

2. We have heard Mr.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Special Government Pleader (Tax) and Mr.C.Baktha Siromoni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The respondent is a transporter. The vehicle belonging to the respondent was detained on the ground that the goods transported therein were not accompanied by documents prescribed under Section 67(5) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Immediately, the respondent approached this Court seeking a mandamus to release the goods. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Judge, by an order dated 22.01.2016, on condition that the respondent should pay the tax demanded. The learned Judge also left it open to the respondent to challenge the levy of compounding fee if there was any, before the appropriate authority.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the State has come up with the above appeal on the short ground that transporters do not file revision petitions and participate in the compounding proceedings.

5. In other words, the appellant does not have and cannot have a grievance against the impugned order, since the respondent has been permitted to take away the goods after payment of tax. What worries the appellant is the question of determination of compounding fee.

6. But as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the goods belong to different assessees. What is offered by the respondent is something for the purpose of purchasing peace and getting the goods released. Therefore, the worry about compounding fee should not drive the appellant to detain the goods.

7. In such circumstances, we find nothing wrong in the order passed by the learned Judge. Hence the writ appeal is dismissed. However, the respondent is directed to participate in any adjudication proceedings whenever they are initiated. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.1919 of 2016 is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar

To The Commercial Tax Officer, Roving Squad-III, Enforcement (North), Chennai - 600 006.

1 cc to Special Government Pleader (Taxes), Sr. 8947 W.A.No.144 of 2016 GJ (CO) kk 26/2