ORDER
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. Petitioner seeks for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent not to insist on payment of tax on agency purchases without issuing any legal and statutory notice in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in [1992] 87 STC 196 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti) and [1993] 90 STC 1 [Co-operative Sugars (Chittur) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu].
2. According to the petitioner, it is a proprietory concern, doing business in raw rubber sheets and that the concern is also registered under the TNGST Act, 1959 and CST Act, 1956. It also claims that it is a licensed dealer. While so, the grievance of the petitioner is that it used to purchase raw rubber from the local market and dispatch them to the principals on receipt of directions from the principals “to purchase and dispatch” and in the circumstances there was no scope for payment of sales tax either under the provisions of the TNGST Act or CST Act and therefore, the frequent detention of the petitioner’s vehicles transporting such raw rubber by the respondent is in total violation of the TNGST Act. In those circumstances, the petitioner seeks for the issuance of the writ as prayed for.
3. On a perusal of the material papers filed along with this writ petition, I find that on one occasion, that was on June 17, 2004 when the petitioner’s vehicle was intercepted by the respondent, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 20,160 towards tax and surcharge in respect of invoice No. 1 and that the said amount was made under protest. Similarly, such payment of tax of a sum of Rs. 53,760 was made by the petitioner under invoice No. 2 on June 25, 2004. Such payments were made by the petitioner under protest or as otherwise according to the petitioner, the respondent used to detain the vehicle unnecessarily, which seriously affect the petitioner’s avocation. I am afraid, based on these materials placed by the petitioner, there is any scope for granting a blanket direction as prayed for in this writ petition. Even according to the petitioner, there was no demand by the respondent herein for payment of tax and that such payment was not in consonance with the provisions of the TNGST Act, in particular, Section 42. If that be so, the petitioner should have insisted upon an order with reasoning for making any such payment while the vehicle was detained or before making any payment under protest, in which event, it would be open for the petitioner to work out its remedy by way of challenging such orders before the appropriate authorities, if the said order does not fit in to the provisions of Section 42 of the TNGST Act. Therefore, when there is no cause of action that could be traced in this writ petition for countenancing the claim of the petitioner, there is no scope for granting any relief to the petitioner as prayed for in this writ petition. It is, however, open to the petitioner to work out its remedy as and when the occasion arises, by virtue of any act of the respondent in furtherance of its action under Section 42 of the TNGST Act. This writ petition, however, fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.