Compliance with prescribed forms and procedures under the TNVAT Act is essential for the transport of goods, and the petitioner's right to file a revision before the competent authority should be upheld.

1. The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition seeking to quash the detention Notice in G.D.No.126/2012-13 dated 06.02.2013 with a further direction to the respondent to release the goods detained as per the above notice.

2. According to the petitioner, it is a Private Limited Company, duly incorporated under Companies Act, 1956. It is selling tyres and tubes for automobiles and also registered their business under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short 'TNVAT Act') and also under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short ' CST Act'). The petitioner has sold tyres and tubes for automobiles to M/s. J.K.V. Tyres, No.76, 100 Feet Road, Puducherry-605 004 and the transport of goods are supported by ten Sales Invoices, for the sale value of Rs.14,84,446.80. The respondent has issued goods detention notice in G.D.No.126/2012-13, dated 06.02.2013, stating the following reason:

"Transported the goods from Chennai to Puducherry. The Consignor maintained without printed serial number in Form JJ. As per Form JJ Column (5) Transport details wrongly maintained. But collected 2% tax in sales bill."

3. The petitioner would state that there is no difference in the goods transported as per invoices. The ten invoices for the goods were already produced to the respondent for verification and the respondent has not noticed any defect in the ten invoices, in which CST tax at 2% was charged for the transport of goods. The only mistake noticed by the respondent is that there is no printed serial number in Form JJ bearing No.004120 dated 05.02.2013, which was also accompanied with the goods during the movement of goods and this is only a technical mistake which never warrants any detention of goods. As the normal business activities are affected and as the right to do business under Article 19(1)(g) is infringed, the petitioner is left with no other option except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. In the counter affidavit, the respondent has stated that for transport of goods from one place to another place and from one State to another State, necessary transit pass in Form-JJ has to be accompanied while its transit. The petitioner's goods were transported in Vehicle No.TN-04-Y 1199 from Chennai to Puducherry and at Pattanur Check Post, the driver of the vehicle has produced the Sales Invoices and other connected records to the authorities available at the Check Post. Moreover, the Form-JJ maintained by the petitioner does not have printed Serial Number and only a Rubber Stamp impression is found in it and in order to verify the genuineness of the same, the goods were ordered to be detained and accordingly, the goods were detained and necessary goods detention notice in G.D.No.126/2012-13 dated 06.02.2013 was served on the driver of the said vehicle and for such notice, the petitioner has submitted his explanation and requested for release of the detained goods.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the above background and pleadings, submits that the goods were moved with proper tax invoices as required under Sections 69 and 70 of TNVAT Act and there is no necessity to file Form JJ while transporting the goods. It is his contention that the respondent has not noticed the point that either Sales Invoices or Form JJ should be accompanied with the goods as per Sections 68 and 69 of TNVAT Act. He would further submit that the petitioner is prepared to remit the entire tax liability as demanded in the impugned detention notice.

6. Per contra, Mr. A.R.Jayaprathap, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) submits that though the petitioner pays the tax liability, the payment of compounding fee has to be secured, otherwise, lot of prejudice would be caused to the Department in collecting the said compounding fee. He also submits that though the petitioner has a right of revision before the Joint Commissioner, it has not filed any revision so far.

7. Heard Mr. C.Baktha Siromoni, learned couns