Disposed

M/s.Badani Jewellers v. The Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

Madras HC4 Jan 2016WP/23889/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed challenging compounding fee collection and seeking refund. Court directed respondent to furnish compounding notice to enable petitioner to file revision. Petition disposed pending revision.

What did the court decide?

Director to submit representation for compounding notice copy. Respondent to furnish notice for petitioner to file revision without limitation bar.

M/s.Badani Jewellers Vs The Deputy… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.01.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.No.23889 of 2015 and

¶6

M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

¶7

M/s.Badani Jewellers

¶8

rep. by its Proprietor Kamal M. Badani

¶9

... Petitioner Vs

¶10

The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Enforcement (Central), I Floor PAPJM Buildings, No.1, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶11

2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Roving Squad V, Enforcement (Central) Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in G.D.No.2034/RSV/C/2014-15 dated 30.09.2014 and consequential release order in G.D.No.2034/ 2014-15/RS-V dated 01.10.2014 and quash the same as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act and direct the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.3,05,802/- collected towards compounding fee as per release order dated 01.10.2014.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopda

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.S.Manoharan Sundaram, AGP

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the orders dated 30.09.2014 and 01.10.2014 passed by the second respondent and seeking a direction to the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.3,05,802/- collected towards compounding fee, as per release order dated 01.10.2014.

¶17

2.According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act. In the course of their business, the petitioner sent mixed gold ornaments under approval voucher/Bill ref. No.1 dated 29.09.2014 to their representative through courier viz., M/s.Blue Dart https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

Aviation. As no buyer was available for the same, the representative returned the entire goods on 30.09.2014, without effecting any sale in the State of Tamil Nadu. At that time, the goods were checked and were detained by the second respondent for verification of genuineness of the transactions done by the petitioner. Subsequently, a Goods Detention Notice dated 30.09.2014 came to be issued, for which, the petitioner filed their reply. Thereafter, the second respondent, without following due process of law, collected compounding fee of Rs.3,05,802/and released the detained goods by order dated 01.10.2014. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶19

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the goods in question were transported accompanying the valid documents, which clearly show that the same were sent for approval and on final selection of the same, sale bill would be raised. However, without properly verifying the same and without any authority, the second respondent detained the same and issued the goods detention notice dated 30.09.2014. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent neither issued any notice nor passed any compounding order before collecting the compounding fee of Rs.3,05,802/- from the petitioner for release of the goods in question. However, the learned counsel submitted that it would suffice, if a copy of the compounding notice is issued to the petitioner, so as to enable them to file revision before the competent authority.

¶20

4.On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the impugned orders came to be passed as per law. In support of his contention, the learned Additional Government Pleader produced the files maintained by the department, wherein, the copies of the draft compounding notice dated 01.10.2014 and the reply dated 01.10.2014 submitted by the petitioner to the said notice expressing their willingness to compound the offence, were enclosed at pages 69 to 71 of the same.

¶21

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶22

6.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised various grounds against the impugned orders passed by the second respondent, he ultimately submitted that it would suffice, if a copy of the notice relating to compounding fee is served on the petitioner, so as to enable them to approach the competent authority for appropriate relief. In view of the same, the petitioner is directed to submit a representation for furnishing a copy of the compounding notice to the second respondent within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing of such representation, the second respondent shall furnish a copy of the compounding notice as well as the letter submitted by the petitioner on 01.10.2014 immediately. On receipt of the same, the petitioner is permitted to file revision before

¶23

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

¶24

the authority concerned within a period of two weeks thereafter. On filing of such revision, the authority concerned shall entertain the same without raising any issue relating to limitation and thereafter consider and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Since the place of business of the petitioner is at Gujarat, representation shall be made by the counsel on record for the petitioner, on which basis, the copy of the compounding notice shall be furnished to him.

¶25

7.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶26

-sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
/ TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)
Enforcement (Central), I Floor
PAPJM Buildings,
No.1, Greams Road,
Chennai 600 006.
2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Roving Squad V, Enforcement (Central)
Chennai 600 006.
+1 cc to MR.T.PRAMODUKUMAR CHOPDA SR.NO. 83
+1 CC SPECIAL Government pleader SR.NO. 141
W.P.No.23889 of 2015
scd[co]
RD 03/02/16

¶27

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

M/s.Badani Jewellers v. The Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Badani Jewellers v. The Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

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

M/s. Prakash Gold Palace Vs The Commissioner of Customs

K.P.Mohanasundaram Vs Tmt.S.Nalini

M/S.Crs Sons & Co.Ltd Vs the Income Tax Officer

A.Moorthy, S/o.Arumugam, Vs Tamilnadu Small Industries

M/s. Blendsteel Engineering Vs The Commissioner of Commercial

D.Sankar Vs The Regional Transport Officer