GUPTA ENTERPRISES Vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, claiming to be the largest exporter of sandal wood, prays for a mandamus to forbear the respondents from making any claim or demand for the payment of demurrage charges and penal charges from the petitioner in respect of the purchase orders issued by notices dated 7. 9. 1994, 8. 9. 1994 and 13. 9. 1994 by respondents-2 to 4 respectively.

(2.) THE petitioner was the successful bidder at the following auctions held for sale of sandal wood by zzzthe respondent/forest Department: sl. No Place Date Quantity Amount Date of Confirmation 1 Sathyamangalam 4/7/94 23 M. Tonnes 48,81,500/- 13/9/1994 2 Salem 6/7/94 63 M. Tonnes 1,43,48,000/- 08/9/94 3 Tirupattur 8/7/94 123. 500 M. Tonnes 2,64,58,650/- 7/9/94

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, all the confirmation orders were received by them on 30. 9. 1994. It is their further case that purchases were for export and hence, exempt from sales tax, as provided under Section 5 (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. They had obtained export orders prior to the confirmation of the auction and hence, not liable to pay sales tax. In terms of the conditions of sale, the petitioner had deposited amount representing 5% of the total sale amount as Earnest Money Deposit. In terms of sales conditions, purchasers are required to pay the entire sale consideration along with administrative charges within 50 days from the date of receipt of the confirmation orders and delivery has to be taken within 75 days. However, the respondents were insisting on the payment of sales tax also along with the amounts to be paid by the petitioner. By letter dated 26. 11. 1994, the petitioner had informed the respondent about the export orders and that hence, they were not liable to pay the tax. In spite of several representations and requests, according to the petitioners, the respondents were refusing to accept the said legal position and continued to insist on the payment of sales tax. Repeated correspondence had no effect on the respondents and hence, the petitioner made a representation before the Principal Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 15. 4. 1996 along with the circulars issued on the subject. But ultimately, nothing happened, resulting in inordinate delay in permitting the petitioners to make the due payments and to take delivery of the goods. As the petitioner was threatened of being burdened with additional charges like demurrage charges and penal interest on the sale amount, they again appealed to the respondents on 7. 3. 1996. However, by letters dated 11. 3. 1996 and 21. 3. 1996, the respondents had refused to consider any claim for waiver of demurrage and penal interest charges. Hence, the writ petition.