JUDGMENT:- 1. The deponent of the affidavit is the Accounts Manager and Finance of the petitioner company and as per the averments made in the affidavit it is known that the company is engaged in plastic moulding goods and also claims that it is the highest tax remitter with the respective States including the Union Territory of Puducherry etc. It is the case of the petitioner that during the course of manufacturing activities, it imported raw materials from Kuwaith under bill of Entry dated 27.03.2015 and it was cleared on 28.03.2015 and transported through vehicle bearing registration nos.TN04 Q 6682, TN21 L 2509, TN04 AB 2381 and TN 04 Q 0461 respectively. 2. The petitioner would claim that though in the relevant documents, the TIN number of the Puducherry Unit has been clearly mentioned, on account of the over sight in the E-transit pass, the TIN number of the petitioner's Hosur Unit (Tamil Nadu) was not mentioned and though it was an inadvertent mistake, it cannot attract either provisions of Section 72 or the provisions of Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax and challenging the legality of the said proceedings, came forward to file these writ petitions. 3. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, and that the respective counsel appearing for the parties also expressed their consent for final disposal, these writ petitions are taken up and disposed of. 4. Mr.S.N.Kirubanandam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that in the light of the facts and the legal challenge pleaded in the affidavit, petitioner is entitled to get release of goods without paying the tax and also placed reliance upon the decision reported in 132 STC 354 (P.R.P. Granites vs. Check-Post Officer/ Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Puzhal Check-Post (Incoming), Chennai). 5. Per contra, Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondent would contend that the petitioner may be directed to pay tax due at the rate of 5% demanded in the impugned notice and the petitioner may be directed to approach the jurisdiction RPO and in that event, the goods detained can be released. 6. 5. Per contra, Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondent would contend that the petitioner may be directed to pay tax due at the rate of 5% demanded in the impugned notice and the petitioner may be directed to approach the jurisdiction RPO and in that event, the goods detained can be released. 6. This Court taking into consideration the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials placed on record is of the view that the petitioner has to be directed to pay tax due claimed at the rate of 5% in the impugned compounding notice with liberty to avail appropriate remedy with regard to the claim of compounding fee. 7. These writ petitions are disposed of and the detained goods which were transported in the above said vehicles are ordered to be released subject to the condition, that the petitioner shall pay tax due at the rate of 5% claimed in the impugned compounding notices dated 31.03.2015 within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such payment, the respondent is directed to release the goods detained by them. The petitioner is also at liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law with regard to the claim of compounding fee. 8. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.