Disposed

Mantralaya Impex v. The Deputy Commercial Tax

Madras HC11 Jan 2016WP/1114/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P. No. 1114 of 2016, the Madras High Court directed the respondent to release the petitioner's detained goods immediately upon payment of Rs. 1,10,000/-, dismissing the writ petition for quashing the detention order as goods were later deemed facilitated for settlement.

What did the court decide?

The goods of the petitioner are to be released forthwith on payment of a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-.

Mantralaya Impex Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax — Madras HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.01.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.No.1114 OF 2016

¶6

Mantralaya Impex

¶7

represented by its Proprietrix, Vandana, S.

¶8

No.3, Gyan Towers, Gopalakrishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. .. Petitioner vs.

¶9

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Roving Squad II Enforcement (North), Chennai – 600 006. .. Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the files of the respondent herein in his proceedings GD No.7077/2015-16, dated 07.01.2016, and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Kumar For Respondent: Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, Additional Government Pleader O R D E R

¶12

Challenging the order of the respondent dated 07.01.2016, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶13

The petitioner company is manufacturing and dealing all types of window frames. They imported materials from China and transported it to Prestige Estate Projects Limited, Iyappanthangal, Chennai. During transit, the vehicle was intercepted and the impugned detention notice was issued on the ground that the same was transported without any proper documents.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner produced all the documents and despite the same, the respondent detained the goods. The learned counsel for

¶15

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

¶16

the petitioner also submitted that in order to get the goods released earlier, the petitioner is wiling to deposit a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- and co-operate with the respondent in the adjudication proceedings.

¶17

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the goods of the petitioner shall be released on payment of a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. Accordingly, the respondent shall release the goods forthwith on payment of a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakhs ten thousand only). It is made clear that all other proceedings pertaining to composition of offences shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

¶18

With the above directions, this writ petition is
disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Roving Squad II Enforcement (North),
Chennai – 600 006.
+1cc to Mr.R.Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.1880
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.2212
W.P.No.1114 of 2016
vs(CO)
srg (12/01/2016)

¶19

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

Mantralaya Impex v. The Deputy Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mantralaya Impex v. The Deputy Commercial Tax

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

V.S.Geetha Bai Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Mahendra College of Engineerin Vs The Government of India

M/s.Pon Pure Chemical India Vs The Commissioner of Customs

V.Anniyappan Vs The Transport Commissioner

Sundaram Hydraulics Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M.R.Palanisamy Vs State of Tamil Nadu