Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the goods in question, which had been imported from Hongkong, had been cleared by OPMS Clearing and Forwarding Agency Private Limited, from the customs. When the imported consignment was being transported through a local transporter, namely, PMVS Transport, Chennai, to be taken to Om Logistics Limited for the onward transportation of the same to Delhi, the container, containing the goods in question, had been intercepted by the second respondent, at Madhavaram, on the presumption that the goods were being moved to a private godown. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner is a dealer in Delhi, who had imported the goods in question, having imported the same through the Chennai port. In such circumstances, the impugned notice issued by the second respondent, dated 23.2.2011, levying the tax of Rs.1,18,332/-, at the rate of 4%, under the relevant provisions of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and imposing a compounding fee of Rs.3,54,996/-, is arbitrary and illegal. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1) Amber Impex V. T.N.Taxation Special Tribunal (144 STC 45) and 2) Mahalakshmi Enterprises V. Registrar, T.N.T.S.T. (Mad) (144 STC 47) 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax amount of Rs.1,18,332/- and the compounding fee of Rs.3,54,996/-, as the goods in question had been taken for off-loaded in a local godown, for local sales. The petitioner, who is a registered dealer at Delhi, cannot deliver the goods in question at the private godown, within the State of Tamil Nadu, in violation of Section 69 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Thereby, he had committed an offence, under Section 71(3)(e) of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. As such the petitioner is liable to pay the tax, as prescribed in the impugned notice, as well as the compounding fee, under Section 72(1) (a) of the said Act. 6. Thereby, he had committed an offence, under Section 71(3)(e) of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. As such the petitioner is liable to pay the tax, as prescribed in the impugned notice, as well as the compounding fee, under Section 72(1) (a) of the said Act. 6. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the goods in question, which were being transported to Delhi, had been intercepted and the impugned notice had been issued by the second respondent. Hence, he had prayed that the goods in question may be released, subject to the adjudication proceedings to be conducted by the respondents, as per law, on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee, for a sum of Rs.1,18,332/-, to the satisfaction of the second respondent. 7. In such circumstances, the second respondent is directed to release the goods in question, on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee, for the sum of Rs.1,18,332/-, to the satisfaction of the second respondent. The respondents shall complete the adjudication proceedings, as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner is directed to cooperate, fully, in the adjudication proceedings to be held by the respondents. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.