IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:03.12.2009 CORAM:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.18006 of 2006 M/S.Arunachala Impex, rep. by its partner, Mr.N.Kumar .. Petitioner Vs 1. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Enforcement (East) PAPJM Building, Greams Road, Chennai.6 2. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Roving Squad II Enforcement (East) PAPJM Building, Greams Road, Chennai.6 3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Mannady West Asst.Circle, Chennai. . . . Respondents . . Prayer: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent relating to G.D.No.33/2005-2006, quash the impugned notice dated 26.04.2006 as the same is without jurisdiction and further to direct the first and second respondents to release the 450 bags of S.S.Utensils detained in the above G.D.No.33/2005-2006 dated 02.02.2006. . . . For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ganesh For respondents : Mr.J.Ganesan,G.A. (T) . . . O R D E R The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the notice of the second respondent in G.D.No.33/2005-2006, and to direct the respondents to release the consignment detailed in the above G.D.No.33/2005-2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner Unit is an exporter of Stainless Steel household articles, handicrafts items, table kitchen wares etc. and it was duly registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called as the 'TNGST Act') and also under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956.The petitioner is a 100% export oriented Unit. The Government of India, Ministry of Commerce has granted a Certificate (i.e) Import-Export Code. The petitioner used to purchase goods locally and export the same. Such export is exempted from Sales Tax. Some of the goods which were not exported were lying in a godown, which was detained by the respondent authorities in GD 33/2005-2006 on 02.02.2006. The reason for detention was that the department wanted to verify the genuineness of the transaction as stated by the petitioner and also to look into the registration certificate and other documents relating thereto. The petitioner approached the authorities and submitted the relevant documents to show that it was part of export consignment. However, without accepting the stand of the petitioner, the second respondent issued the impugned notice cum demand in G.D.No.33/2005-2006 dated 26.04.2006 demanding a sum of Rs.1,40,514/- as tax. The writ petition has been filed challenging the said proceedings. 3. While admitting the writ petition, this Court granted a conditional interim order directing the petitioner to pay the entire tax and giving bank guarantee in respect of one time compounding fee as an interim measure. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that such an amount as directed by the Court has been deposited and bank guarantee has also been furnished. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. At the time of final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a bunch of documents containing copies of shipping bills for export through Sea Port, Chennai and stated that the goods which were the subject matter of G.D.33/2005-2006 dated 02.02.2006 have been exported and therefore, the demand for tax as stated in the impugned demand notice cum order cannot be sustained. 6. The learned counsel Mr.Ganesan appearing for the department has stated that the petitioner can approach the Commercial Tax Officer and give the details of the export under the shipping bills and satisfy the authorities that the goods covered under G.D.33/2005-2006 dated 02.02.2006 have been exported and make a request that the demand for tax should be withdrawn. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. The impugned notice cum proceedings is a demand consequent to G.D.NO.33/2005-2006 dated 02.02.2006 and the department has proceeded to demand a sum of Rs.1,40,514/- based on the inspection report of the second respondent, after verification of stock in the godown at 781 & 783, T.H.Road, Chennai. It is stated by respondents that it is a case of improper transaction to avoid payment of tax. The goods were released by order of this court in order in M.P.No.1 of 2006 on 23.06.2006. 8. In view of the subsequent events and the plea taken by the petitioner that the goods which are the subject matter of the detention order has already been exported, the petitioner is directed to approach the third respondent and satisfy the said authority with regard to the export of the goods seized under G.D.NO.33/2005-2006 dated 02.02.2006 and such authority shall consider the representation to be submitted by the petitioner for considering the plea of the petitioner to withdraw the demand for tax under the impugned notice. 9. The petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate representation along with relevant records to the authority concerned within a reasonable time and on such representation being made, the third respondent-authority or any other appropriate authority shall decide the matter on merits within a period of eight weeks thereafter. No order as to costs. PAL Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Enforcement (East) PAPJM Building, Greams Road, Chennai.6 2. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Roving Squad II Enforcement (East) PAPJM Building, Greams Road, Chennai.6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Mannady West Asst.Circle, Chennai. + 1 cc to Mr.A.Ganesh, Advocate SR No.65839 + 1 cc to the Spl Government Pleader (T) SR 66138 W.P. No. 18006 of 2006 PA(CO) SR/31.12.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/