ASHOK ELECTRO DIAMONDS Vs. JOINT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER TIRUCHIRAPALLI AND THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES TIRUCHIRAPALLI DIVISION TIRUCHIRAPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE six writ petitions are connected and raise a common question. The petitioner in each of these writ petitions is a dealer in synthetic diamonds. His course of business is to despatch packets of synthetic diamonds to prospective buyers outside the State and if they are approved then it is customary for him to raise an invoice and thereafter obtain a C form certificate and follow the usual procedure in connection with the filing of returns under the Central Sales Tax Act and the connected rules thereunder. He would also state that some of the packets of synthetic diamonds so sent by him to the prospective buyers were returned back as not approved. The case of the petitioner is that, on the basis of the despatches made by him of the diamonds and without taking into consideration fully the quantum and value of the diamonds returned by the prospective buyers, a proposal has been made to assess the petitioner on the basis of such despatches and on the foot that such despatches resulted in a sale in the eye of law. The first respondent, viz. , the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Gandhi Market, Tiruchirapalli, gave the impugned notice wherein he estimated the total inter-State sales as per books at a certain figure and proposed to levy Central sales tax on that basis and called upon the petitioners to file their objections to the proposal. As already stated he took into consideration all the insured parcels sent by the petitioner from Tiruchirapalli and the complaint is that he ought to have taken notice of the fact that several of such parcels were returned with the result that there was no concluded sale in relation to such returned parcels. The petitioner is said to have approached the postal authorities for the furnishing of necessary information regarding the despatch and return of such postal parcels from the post office from which the petitioner sent such parcels outside the State. The postal authorities, taking shelter under rule 17 of the miscellaneous Rules framed under the Post Offices Act, refused to furnish the information to the petitioner. Therefore, they are impleaded as second respondent in these writ petitions. The first respondent at or about the time when these proceedings were initiated was threatening to finalise the assessment on the basis of the proposal. The petitioners have therefore come up to this court for a writ of mandamus against both the public officers on the ground that each of them has failed in their public duty to assist the petitioner in the matter of securing relevant information necessary for the completion of the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in so far as the second respondent is concerned, he is bound to furnish information at least as regards the articles addressed to him. But the counsel for the postal department urges that rule 17 lays an embargo on the department in the matter of furnishing any records of any post office to any person or permitting anyone to examine any article not addressed to him though the article may have been posted by him.

(2.) THE further contention is that under the rules no person not belonging to the department may be permitted to examine the records of any post office and such person cannot be permitted to examine any article not addressed to him though the article may have been posted by him. THE other portion of the rule is not relevant. Instead of considering the question whether there is a public duty on the second respondent to furnish the records in connection with any article not addressed to any person even though the article may have been posted by him, I intend disposing of these writ petitions by giving certain directions instead of making the rule nisi absolute against both the respondents.