Dismissed

M/s. Muthu Traders, v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Madras HC20 Jan 2015WP/1178/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ petitions seeking quashing of a compounding notice and detention of goods. It directed the respondent to release the goods upon payment of the tax component and stated that claims for compounding fees await adjudication.

What did the court decide?

petitions disposed with direction to release goods on payment of tax component; compounding fees claim to await adjudication.

M/s. Muthu Traders, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct) — Madras HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 20.01.2015

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶4

M/s.Muthu Traders Rep.by its Proprietor D.Muthu ..Petitioner in W.P.No.1178 of 2015

¶5

M/s.Vikas Marketing, Rep.by its Manager –S.Ram Kumar ..Petitioner in W.P.No.1179 of 2015

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Enforcement, Tuticorin ..Respondent in both W.Ps.

¶8

Prayer in both W.Ps.:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned proceeding of the Respondent in Compounding Notice No.A1/1292/2014 dated 02.01.2015 quash the same.

¶9

The Writ Petitioners have come forward with the aforesaid prayer, challenging the goods detention notice and for release of the goods.

¶10

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

¶11

2.Heard both sides.

¶12

The petitioners/companies are the dealers in Ceramic Vitrified Tiles and assesse on the files of the Assistant Commissioner (CT) Enforcement, Tuticorin. The petitioners transported the goods inside and outside of the States, without valid documents and hence, the goods were ordered to be detained by the respondent. The respondent also levied the advance Tax for a sum of Rs.3,39,470/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand four hundred and seventy only) in respect of the petitioner W.P.No.1178 of 2015 and Rs.1,85,156/- (Rupees One Lakh eighty five thousand one hundred and fifty six only) in respect of the petitioner W.P.No. 1179 of 2015 along with

¶13

the compounding fees. When the petitioners approached the respondent, they did not release the goods. Therefore, the petitioners are before this court.

¶14

This Court in a series of writ petitions, directed the goods to be released on payment of the tax component.

¶15

Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent to release the goods on payment of the tax component in a sum of Rs.3,39,470/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand four hundred and seventy only) in W.P.No.1178 of 2015 and Rs.1,85,156/- (Rupees One Lakh eighty five thousand one hundred and fifty six only) in W.P.No. 1179 of 2015. In so far as any other claims of the respondent is concerned, they shall await the adjudication. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶16

Assistant Registrar Dated 18.02.2015

¶17

*Corrected as per the order of this court dated 23.02.2015 and made herein. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) Dated :25.02.2015

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

kkd

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Enforcement, Tuticorin

¶24

To be substituted to the order already despatched on 20.02.2015

¶25

2 cc to Ms.R.Hemalatha,Advocate, SR.No. 9763

¶26

1 cc to Spl. Government Pleader,Sr.No 9767
W.P.Nos1178 & 1179 of 2015
and
M.P.Nos.1, 1, 2 & 2 of 2015
TEJ(CO)
PMK.18.2.2015
PSI 25.02.2015

¶27

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

M/s. Muthu Traders, v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Muthu Traders, v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl.Sri Krishna Electrical and Vs The Assistant Commissioner

State of Tamil Nadu, Vs Confederation of Real Estate

The Government of Tamilnadu, Vs v.Arun

M/s.Florind Shoes Pvt.Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Southern Petrochemical Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

J.B. Khokhani & Co., Vs Commissioner of Customs