High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 01 MAD CK 0248

Adhar Digital Vision Pvt. Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Mr.P.Baskar vs The State of Tamilnadu by its Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, & Ors.

Madras High Court · Decided on 4 January 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajiv Shakdher
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
178 of 2017 & WMP Nos 173 and 174 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

25 paragraphs · 411 words
1.

Issue notice. Mr.K.Venkatesh, accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

2.

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner says that since, a remedy by way of a second revision, as provided under Section 57 of

the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is available, the petitioner will take its chance, qua the impugned order, by triggering the said

remedy.

2.1. Counsel for the petitioner, however, seeks two (2) directions: first, two (2) out of three (3) vehicles, which carried the set-top boxes and are

in the custody of the respondents, be released. In this connection, learned counsel further says that, if, storage space is required, the petitioner can

provide such space to the respondents for storing the set-top boxes.

2.2. Second, which is a direction sought in the alternative, that the, set-top boxes be released upon payment of 50% of the tax imposed and for the

remaining 50% of the tax, the petitioner be permitted to furnish a bank guarantee.

3.

Having regard to the aforesaid, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority by way of a

second revision petition.

3.1. The respondents, will, however, forthwith release the subject vehicles, which hold the set-top boxes.

4.

In so far as the other direction is concerned, that is, with regard to release of set-top boxes upon payment of tax, I have put to Mr.Venkatesh,

who appears on advance notice, as to whether the mode and manner of payment of tax, as indicated above, would be acceptable to the

respondents.

4.1. Mr.Venkatesh says, that if, the mode and manner, as suggested by the petitioner is taken forward, in point of fact, the respondents would

release the subject set-top boxes.

5.

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the settop boxes as well, in case, 50% of the tax is deposited by the petitioner and, qua the

balance 50% of the tax, bank guarantee of a Nationalised Bank, is furnished.

5.1. In the event, this option is not exercised by the petitioner, respondents, if they so desire, shall call upon the petitioner to provide a storage

space for the set-top boxes.

5.2. Needless to say, in such eventuality, the petitioner will hold the set-top boxes in trust for the respondents, subject to further directions, if any,

that may be issued by an appropriate forum in that behalf.

6.

Resultantly, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

However, there will be no order as to costs.