GUPTA EXPORTS Vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 23.1.2000 in C.No.5804/99/S and forbear the respondents from making any claim or demand from the petitioner for the payment of Sales Tax, demurrage charges and penal interest in respect of purchase of 15 Mts of sandalwood made by the petitioner in the auction dated 28.4.1999.

(2.) Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the processing and business of sandalwood and also the export of sandalwood. The petitioner claims that he had received a specific export order dated 20.12.1998 for sandalwood chips to be exported to Hong Kong. The petitioner had participated in the auction dated 28.4.1999 conducted by the second respondent as per the notice dated 21.3.1999. The petitioner was declared as a successful bidder in respect of 15 Metric Tonnes of sandalwood for a bid amount of Rs.51,29,000/-. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of Earnerst Money deposit and a further a sum of Rs.10,36,500/- representing 20% of the sale amount. The petitioner claims that such purchase was made for the purpose of meeting the export demand and as such the petitioner was exempted from paying sales tax as per the provisions contained in Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. However, while intimating that the auction has been confirmed by order dated 16.5.1999, which was received by the petitioner on 29.5.1999, the petitioner was called upon to pay certain amount which included a sum of Rs.4,11,346/- towards sales tax. However, since the second respondent insisted for payment of entire amount including the sum indicated towards sales tax liability, the petitioner had filed W.P.No15094/99 which was disposed of by a learned single Judge by order dated 14.9.1999. It was observed in the aforesaid matter as follows :- “ . . . In the above circumstances, the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled for exemption of Sales Tax if it is made for the purpose of export sale and this particular quantity is entitled for exemption can be considered by the District Forest Officer on merits and in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

(3.) Even though the aforesaid order was passed after hearing the Special Government Pleader, who had accepted notice on behalf of the District Forest Officer, on 15.9.1999, the very next day, the District Forest Officer called upon the petitioner to settle the amount within 7 days indicating that on failure to do so, action will be taken to forfeit the amount already deposited. Subsequently, a telegram was also issued by the District Forest Officer. On receipt of the aforesaid telegram, a reply telegram was sent by the petitioner wherein the attention of the District Forest Officer was brought to the order passed by the High Court in W.P.No.15094 of 1999. On 29.9.1999, the District Forest Officer passed the following order : “ . . . As per the Hon’ble High Court, Chennai order dt: 14.9.99 in WMP No.21807 and 21808 /99 in W.P.No.15094/99, you are requested to pay the balance sale amount, penal interest, Demurrage etc., as per the Sale condition. Further you have to produce Foreign Buyer agreement executed before the sale date. For availing exemption of payment of 8% Sales Tax or to produce Bank Guarantee for the same amount valid for one year. An undertaking letter should also be given stating that the Export records should be produced within three months. You are requested to complete the above formalities and lift the wood immediately. . . .” On receipt of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner immediately wrote back on 4.10.1999 again referring to the order passed by the High Court stating that the demand regarding penal interest and demurrage was not justified. The District Forest Officer gave a reply dated 2.11.1999 stating that the request to release the sandalwood without payment of penal interest and demurrage was not acceptable. Subsequently, the District Forest Officer again wrote a letter directing the petitioner to pay sales tax due, penal interest and demurrage charges along with other dues. The petitioner again gave a reply reiterating about the High Court’s order and the fact that the petitioner had participated in the auction for meeting the export order. Such correspondence continued and ultimately on 23.1.2000, an order was passed forfeiting the amount already deposited. The aforesaid order is being challenged in this writ petition with a consequential prayer that the second respondent should release the goods without insisting upon payment of penal interest and demurrage charges.