Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1077 (MAD)

RAJNARAYANAN TEXTILES LTD. v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, AVARAPALYAM ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, COIMBATORE.

2007-03-26

K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN

body2007
ORDER K. Raviraja Pandian, J. - The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent herein to furnish the details that were called for by the petitioner as per the petitioner's representation dated February 13, 2007. The petitioner is a manufacturer of textiles at Coimbatore and registered dealer under the respondent both under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. For the assessment year 2002-03, the petitioner has reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 11,00,83,102 and Rs. 11,00,83,102 respectively by way of monthly return in form A1. The respondent has issued a notice on January 31, 2007 wherein it is alleged that on July 08, 2004 the petitioner's place of business was inspected by the enforcement wing officials and they have sent a report to the effect that despatches to Kerala depot were immediately sold to Coimbatore and Erode dealers, that the sale bills bear the seal of STO, Velandevalam in Kerala, but not the sales tax check-post at Pichanur in Tamil Nadu. The goods received at Velandevalam were sold to the dealers on the same day. On that basis, an opinion has been formed by the assessing officer that the claim of the petitioner regarding the despatches made to Kerala depot are only branch transfer and not a sale was not correct and proposed to be rejected and treated as local sales. The petitioner by the letter dated February 13, 2007 sent a preliminary reply, reserving the right to file a final reply and asked for details of the orders placed by the ultimate buyers in all the 190 despatches and 580 sale invoices so as to enable the petitioner to give a final reply. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the details which they sought for as referred to above have not been furnished, which makes the petitioner handicapped in giving their final reply and hence a direction may be issued to the assessing officer to furnish the details referred to above. I have heard the argument of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. The point in dispute in this case is that the 190 despatches made to the Kerala depot is claimed as stock transfer to the depot at Kerala and it is not a sale at all. I have heard the argument of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. The point in dispute in this case is that the 190 despatches made to the Kerala depot is claimed as stock transfer to the depot at Kerala and it is not a sale at all. However, the respondent - assessing authorities proposed to refer the same as a local sales and not a stock transfer. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the petitioner is having detailed accounts and all the despatches are reflected in the accounts which the petitioner is maintaining in the course of business. If these details are available with the petitioner to establish that the despatches are only stock transfer, not a local sale, that would be sufficient to establish the case of the petitioner. The details which the petitioner sought for is nothing but a roving enquiry either to stall the proceedings or gain time cannot be accepted, particularly when the details about the 190 despatches are available with the petitioner. When the petitioner claims that those despatches are only stock transfer, it is his duty, prima facie, to place the material to sustain the claim, which is also evident from section 10 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. While these questions are put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the counsel submits that the respondent pre-determined the issue and if a direction is issued by this court to consider the case as per the materials furnished by the petitioner, that would safeguard the interest of the petitioner, and the petitioner is ready to file their objections within the time granted by this court. Having regard to the fair submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file the objections within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereupon the respondent - assessing authority is directed to consider each and every one of the objections and also the relevant materials placed sustaining the objection raised by the petitioner or on the other hand sustaining the claim made by the petitioner in respect of 190 despatches which is in dispute in this writ petition and proceed further in accordance with law and not being influenced by the D3 proposal. No costs.