Judgment :- S. RAMALINGAM, J. The petitioner has purchased timber from three dealers from Indore, Madhya Pradesh and he transported the timber by lorry from Indore to Madras. According to the petitioner, sale bills were sent along with the vehicle and at every check-post, during the course of transport from Indore to Madras, the concerned check-post officers made endorsements on these sale bills. When the lorry reached Ranipet check-post, the check-post officer would not accept the sale bill either because he would not able to read the Gujarathi language in which the sale bills were written or for some other reason. After recording the statement from the driver of the lorry, a sum of Rs. 1000 as compounding fee was collected on the spot by the check-post officer and the consignment was released. Aggrieved by the order of the said check-post officer, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner which was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a further revision before the Joint Commissioner who at that time was one Mr. Venugopal. He heard arguments and reserved orders. At the time of the hearing, the petitioner produced the sale bills along with the English translated copies. But orders were communicated to the petitioner signed by the successor-in-office Mr. Thangavelu. Aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. At the time when the case came up for final hearing, learned Additional Government Pleader produced the files of the Joint Commissioner. The sale bills issued by the dealers in Madhya Pradesh are found in the file along with the English translated copies. The Joint Commissioner had rejected the validity of these sale bills on the ground that the provisions of sub-rules (11) and (12) to rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, prescribing the manner in which the sale bills should be maintained bearing English international numerals have not been followed. 3. Mr. K. J. Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that this is an inter-State sale and that the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules has no application. He would submit that the non-compliance of provisions of sub-rules (11) and (12) of rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules would not vitiate the sale bills produced by the petitioner. 4. He would submit that the non-compliance of provisions of sub-rules (11) and (12) of rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules would not vitiate the sale bills produced by the petitioner. 4. A perusal of the sale bill shows that they have been maintained in the regular course of business, although the entries in manuscript found in the sale bills are made in the language other than English. But that would not vitiate the sale bills or take away the authenticity or veracity of those sale bills. Since the orders impugned in this writ petition proceed mainly on the basis that the sale bills have not been maintained by the petitioner in accordance with rule 26(11) and (12) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules and as these rules have no application to an inter-State transport where the goods originated from Madhya Pradesh, the impugned orders are quashed. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. The petitioner would be entitled to the consequential relief of refund. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.