MICHAEL Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the writ petitioner. Appellant filed the Writ Petition seeking to quash Ext. P3 notice issued by the second respondent/Commercial Tax Officer. The further relief sought was to release the goods detained as per Ext. P3 unconditionally. Briefly put, the case of the appellant is as follows:

(2.) It is the case of the appellant that it is mandatory on the part of the second respondent to have effected purchase of the soaps at the price shown in the Invoice and ten per cent above the value. It is accordingly that the appellant approached this Court for the reliefs sought for.

(3.) The learned Single Judge took the view that as far as the prayer for quashing Ext. P3 is concerned, a similar Writ Petition was disposed of directing adjudication to be conducted and in the meanwhile, the goods be released subject to the petitioner therein furnishing bank guarantee for the security demanded. The learned Single Judge further noticed the further contention raised by the appellant based on Sections 45 and Ext. P4 Circular. The learned Single Judge did not find merit in the said contention on the basis that both the provision and the circular only show that it is only an enabling power of the respondents and there is no mandatory obligation for them to purchase the goods in each and every case when their statutory powers are exercised. The learned Single Judge only directed that if the appellant furnishes bank guarantee for the security demanded, the goods will be released. It is feeling aggrieved by the same that the appellant is before us.