Case Law Details
Tvl. R K Motors Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
It is also not in dispute that the bill is addressed only to the writ petitioner’s principal office at Sivakasi; delivery alone is to be made at Virudhunagar. I am of the view that even if by mistake, a wrong instruction had been given to the driver of the vehicle to head towards Sivakasi. Still it would not really matter. The only question that the respondent ought to have posed is whether there is any attempt at evasion. It is not as if the goods had already been offloaded. The vehicle was intercepted when it was in transit. The respondent ought to have directed the driver of the vehicle to move back towards Virudhunagar. Instead adopting such a procedure, the respondent had chosen to be harsh and vindictive. When the writ petitioner is a registered dealer, when the tax in respect of the goods have already been remitted and when the transportation of goods is duly covered by proper documentation, the respondent ought to have taken a sympathetic and indulgent view of the lapse committed by the driver of the vehicle. The detention order dated 28.12.2018 and the order dated 11.01.2019 suffer from vice of gross unreasonableness and disproportionality. When a power is conferred on a statutory authority, it should be exercised in a reasonable manner.
The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner draws my attention to the circular dated 14.09.2018 issued by the Government of India, calling upon the officials to condone the minor lapses and not to proceed under Section 129 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The said circular contemplates levy of only a minor fine of Rs.500/-.
As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the goods in question are two wheelers. They cannot be sold without proper registration with the Motor Vehicle Authorities. That would require proper documentation. Therefore, in a case of this nature, the writ petitioner could not have evaded his statutory obligations in any manner. This aspect of the matter ought to have been taken note by the respondent.
The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as fine to the respondent.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
