Disposed

Tata Communication Banking v. Assistant Commercial Tax

Madras HC1 Feb 2010WP/1256/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged detention orders under TN VAT Act regarding imported goods transported via a third party without a sale in the state. The court held that with proof of service agreement and invoices, further orders were unnecessary, directing release of the goods within a week.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to pass orders releasing the detained goods within one week based on the service agreement and invoices produced.

Tata Communication Banking Vs Assistant Commercial Tax — Property and Title | Madras HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.02.2010

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI

¶5

W.P.Nos.1256 to 1258 of 2010

¶6

Tata Communication Banking
Infrasolutions Limited
VSB, No.4, Swami Sivananda Salai
Chennai-600 002 .. PETITIONER
in all the above WPs
Vs
1.Assistant Commercial Tax Officer
Puzhal Check Post (Out)
Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
2.Assistant Commissioner(CT)
Puzhal, Chennai.
3.Deputy Commissioner (CT)
Enforcement North
Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.
4.Joint Commissioner(CT)
Enforcement I, Greams Road
Chennai-600 006 .. RESPONDENTS in all the above WPs.

¶7

Prayer in W.P.1256/2010:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the case on the file of the first respondent in the impugned detention notice No.91/2009-10 dated 03.01.2010, quash the same.

¶8

Prayer in W.P.1257/2010:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the case on the file of the first respondent in the impugned detention order in Proc.No.G.D.No.91/2009-10 dated 13.01.2010, quash the same.

¶9

Prayer in W.P.1258/2010:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the respondents from interfering with the movement of the goods imported from Korea vide Bill of Entry No.283896 dated 11.08.2009 cleared for home consumption.

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

For petitioner : Mr.Venkataraman, Senior counsel for Lakshmi Sriram

¶12

For respondents : Mr.R.Mahadevan,AGP

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

W.P.Nos.1256 and 1257 of 2010 are directed against the orders of detention passed by the first respondent dated 03.01.2010 and 13.01.2010 purported to be under Section 67(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

¶15

A reference to the impugned orders of detention show that the said respondent has reason to believe that a transaction of sale has taken place and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay tax.

¶16

On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner, that they are the importers of various machines and they have transported through Drive India Enterprise Solutions Limited outside the state of Tamil Nadu passing through the State and there is no transaction of sale, which has been taken place in the territory of the State and it does not attract taxing provision of Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

¶17

Mr.Venkataraman, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently submit that the documents which are produced to the first respondent in the check post including the service agreement with Drive India Enterprise Solutions Limited shows that the Drive India Enterprise Solutions Limited being the transporter transported the goods on behalf of the petitioner through Tamil Nadu and there is no transaction taken place in the territory of the State and inspite of various documents produced to the first respondent by the petitioner, the first respondent has detained the goods which is totally illegal and there is no such power under Section 67(5) to detain the goods.

¶18

Mr.R.Mahadevan, learned Additional Government Pleader on instructions submits that the first respondent would pass orders on the basis of the documents which are produced.

¶19

As I have stated earlier, the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner contains the service agreement entered between the petitioner and Drive India Enterprise Solutions Limited dated 6.07.2009 and a reference to various clauses in the said agreement show that the said Drive India Enterprise Solutions Limited has been entrusted the work as per the agreement in transporting and

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

moving the cargo and consignment belonging to the petitioner from pick up location and delivery to the destination as per the said agreement. Further the transport invoice dated 02.01.2010, which is also filed in the typed set of papers also makes it clear that the transport is effected on behalf of the petitioner through Drive India Enterprise Solutions Limited.

¶22

In such circumstances, when there are several documents to show that the said carrier Drive India Enterprise Solutions Limited as per the agreement has carried the goods on behalf of the petitioner and in the absence of any transaction within the territory of the State, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appropriate authority should look into the matter and pass orders.

¶23

A reference to Section 67(5) is as follows:=-

¶24

" 67(5)- The documents referred to in subsections (2) and (3) are bills of sale, or delivery notes, or such other documents, as may be prescribed."

¶25

No doubt 67(5) enables the authority to compel the production of various documents including delivery notes and various other documents.

¶26

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has produced the documents as per agreement and transport invoice and hence there is no necessary for the first respondent to pass further orders. In such circumstances, the W.P.Nos.1256 and 1257 of 2010 are disposed of with a direction against the first respondent to pass orders releasing the goods which are detained under the impugned orders of detention dated 03.01.2010 and 13.01.2010 based on the contents of the agreement as well as invoices stated above. Such orders shall be passed by the first respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

By virtue of the direction given in W.P.Nos.1256 and 1257 of 2010 directing the first respondent to pass orders regarding the release of goods, no further order is required to be passed in W.P.No.1258 of 2010. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Asst.Registrar.

/true copy/

Sub Asst.Registrar.

nvsri

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

¶35

1.Assistant Commercial Tax Officer
Puzhal Check Post (Out)
Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
2.Assistant Commissioner(CT)
Puzhal
Chennai.
3.Deputy Commissioner (CT)
Enforcement North
Greams Road
Chennai-600 006.
4.Joint Commissioner(CT)
Enforcement I
Greams Road
Chennai-600 006
3 ccs to M/s. Lakshmi Sriram, Advocate, Sr. 5387
1 cc to Spl. Government Pleader, SR. 5670
W.P.Nos.1256 to 1258 of 2010
GS (CO)
kk 2/2

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Tata Communication Banking v. Assistant Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Communication Banking v. Assistant Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Vijayaraghavan Vs Govt. of Tamilnadu

K.Subramanian Vs the Director of Elementary

K.H. Krishna Vs the Secretary to Government

Tvl. P.M.Enterprises Vs Commercial Tax Officer

G. Radhakrishnan Vs Tamilnadu Industrial Investmen

Venkateswara Teacher Vs Union Territory of Pndicherry