IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-12-2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.942 of 2003 M/s.Classic Steel, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr.Prakash T.Jain, No.283, Mint Street, Chennai-600 003. .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Sales Tax Officer, III Circle, Palakkad, Kerala State. 2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Park Town II Assessment Circle, 191, N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. .. Respondents. Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider and comply with the request for being granted copies of records and opportunity as requested by the petitioner by a letter, dated 19.11.2002, and thereafter give time and opportunity to the petitioner to submit such further explanations as may be necessary. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Srikanth For Respondents : Mr.C.Manisankar (R1) Mr.A.C.Manibharathi Government Advocate (T) (R2) O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is a dealer in stainless steel utensils, registered as a dealer, under the provisions of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner is an assessee on the files of the second respondent. The petitioner is not carrying on business in stainless steel utensils in the State of Kerala and in other States. The petitioner had effected sales of stainless steel utensils and had also made direct inter-State sales of stainless steel utensils to buyers outside the State of Tamilnadu.
3. While so, a notice had been issued by the first respondent, under Section 30 (B)(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, stating that the petitioner had sent a consignment supported by 27(B) declarations under the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules and copies of sales bills. However, on verification it was seen that the names of the consignees and their registration numbers, under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, were bogus and non-existent. Therefore, the petitioner was required to furnish supporting evidence with R.c. numbers, along with the names and addresses of the consignees. Following the said notice, the petitioner had requested the first respondent, by a letter, dated 19.11.2002, requesting him to furnish to the petitioner copies of records, based on which the said notice had been issued. A further request had been made by the petitioner for an opportunity to submit further explanations, as found necessary. Since the request of the petitioner had not been complied with by the first respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable, either on facts or on law. It has been further submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging the proceedings initiated by a competent authority, appointed under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. However, without prejudice to the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the first respondent it has been submitted that, as per Section 29(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, no person shall transport within the State any consignment of goods exceeding the prescribed quantity or value by any vehicle or vessel, unless it is accompanied by sales bill, delivery note, way bill or certificate of ownership and with the declaration prescribed, under Rule 35(13)(c) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules. The declaration is to be made as per Form 27(B), which is to be submitted at the entry check post. Since the petitioner had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements, the first respondent had issued the notice, under Section 30(B)(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, as required by law. It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the said notice, at this stage. Even, if an assessment is made, against the petitioner after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard, a further remedy would be available to agitate against the assessment, before the statutory Appellate Authority. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, on the ground that it is premature and that it is not maintainable.
5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition is devoid of merits. Since the petitioner is based at Chennai and a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents, with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court, cannot be sustained.
6. From the records available, it is seen that the writ petition had been admitted by this Court, on 10.1.2003, and rule Nisi had been issued calling for the records relating to the matter. In such circumstances, in view of the limited relief sought for by the petitioner and in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to the first respondent, without going into the merits of the case, to comply with the request of the petitioner, within a specified period. Hence, the first respondent is directed to furnish to the petitioner, the copies of the relevant documents, relied on by the first respondent, while issuing the notice under Section 30(B)(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such documents, the petitioner is to file the objections, within four weeks thereafter and it would be open to the authority concerned to pass appropriate orders, on merits, and in accordance with law, considering the objections submitted by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs.
Index:Yes/No 15-12-2008
Internet:Yes/no
csh
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
csh
To
1.The Sales Tax Officer, III Circle,
Palakkad, Kerala State.
2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Park Town II Assessment Circle,
191, N.S.C.Bose Road,
Chennai-600 001.
W.P.No.942 of 2003
15-12-2008