D S M POLYMERS P LIMITED Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal made in O. P. No. 300 of 2003, dated 25. 3. 2003. The Special Tribunal by its order has held that against the order, which had been challenged before the Special Tribunal, which was passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chennai (North) Division, dated 05. 3. 2003, a revision would lie before the Joint Commissioner (CT) (RP), Chennai-5 under Section 35 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. The Special Tribunal, therefore, has held that since an efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner, it was appropriate for the petitioner to approach the said authority and challenge the order of the Deputy Commissioner by way of filing a revision. It is that order of the Special Tribunal which is being challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) WE heard Mr. K. Venkatasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has committed a grievous error in holding that the transport of goods was not backed by a Bill. He referred to the grounds for detention of the goods and submitted that the reasons given for the detention of goods, which are extracted at page 21 of the typed set, clearly show that the transport of goods was accompanied by Bill and consignment note. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the Deputy Commissioner overlooked the grounds of detention of the goods and he also submitted that the transport of goods was by way of consignment sale. Learned counsel also referred to a part of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, wherein the Deputy Commissioner has stated that the order of dismissal would not in any way affect the rights of the petitioner to make its claim under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, before the appropriate Assessing Authority having jurisdiction over Chennai Port from where the movement of goods commenced and seek refund of advance tax.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that the order of the Deputy Commissioner suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice, as the date of hearing is shown as 20. 2. 2003, but in the order, the Deputy Commissioner has stated that time was granted upto 03. 3. 2003 to file the declaration forms and on that day, the declaration forms were not filed and it was further adjourned to 05. 3. 2003 and on 05. 3. 2003 a Xerox copy of the declaration form was produced for one of the transactions, and, therefore, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, and this fact was omitted to be noticed by the Special Tribunal, when it directed the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy under the provisions of the Act.