RAMS Vs. STO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER had entered into an agreement exhibit P1 with the Government of India on May 31, 1988 for compiling, printing, binding and supplying a specified number of copies of the telephone directory in the Ernakulam Telecom District. As per the agreement, he had to supply 63,000 copies of the directory to the Telecom Department free of cost, besides paying an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the Central Government. The directory was to be printed at his cost. The petitioner was permitted to publish advertisements in the directory which he may procure from the public.

(2.) FOR the purpose of printing the directory, the petitioner procured paper from the Tamil Nadu Newsprint Paper Limited at Pugalur, Tiruchirappalli District. The paper was under transport from Pugalur to the petitioner's place at Kochi by lorry TDX 2264 on February 5, 1989, when it was detained at the Gopalapuram Sales Tax Check -post, and a notice exhibit P5 was issued to the driver under section 29A(2) of the Kerala General Sales tax Act, 1963 ("the Act"), stating that the consignee, the petitioner was not a registered dealer under the Act, and therefore attempt at evasion of sales tax was suspected. The transport was supported by the requisite documents, including delivery note issued under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, a copy of which is exhibit P4. On the interception of the lorry, the petitioner produced before the Check -post Officer the documents relating to his purchase, as also a letter from the Tamil Nadu Newsprint Paper Limited addressed to the Check -post Officer certifying that they have charged 10 per cent Central sales tax on the sale, and that the transport was a bona fide one. The petitioner also produced the gate pass issued by the Central excise authorities for removal of the paper from the factory premises. But the officer did not accept the contention that the transport was bona fide, and insisted on the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for Rs. 30,111 as a condition for release of the goods, pending enquiry. The bank guarantee was accordingly furnished and the goods were got released on February 8, 1989.

(3.) THE Enquiry Officer, namely, the Sales Tax Officer (Enquiry), Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income -tax and Sales Tax, Palakkad, held an enquiry into the matter on July 26, 1989, at which the petitioner appeared and produced the requisite documents in support of his contentions. The petitioner did not thereafter hear anything in the mater from the Enquiry Officer. But the bank which furnished the bank guarantee was informed about an order passed by the said officer, with request to pay the amount of the bank guarantee. The bank thereupon informed the petitioner about the request made by the Enquiry Officer and directed him to remit the amount of Rs. 30,111 for the purpose of honouring the request made by the Enquiry Officer. This letter exhibit B8 from the bank is dated August 2, 1989, wherein they enclosed a copy of the order of the Enquiry Officer July 27, 1989, which had been sent to them by the officer concerned. A copy of that order is exhibit P9. It is seen therefrom that the Enquiry Officer had held that there was attempt at evasion of sales tax by the petitioner. A penalty of Rs. 30,111 was therefore imposed on the petitioner. No copy of this order was ever served on the petitioner, even till date. On receipt of exhibits P8 and P9, and in the absence of any official communication from the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to quash exhibit P9 as he could not resort to the alternate remedy of appeal, without being served with a copy of the order by the Enquiry Officer.