RAJNARAYANAN TEXTILES LTD Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent herein to furnish the details that were called for by the petitioner as per the petitioner's representation dated February 13, 2007.

(2.) THE petitioner is a manufacturer of textiles at Coimbatore and registered dealer under the respondent both under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. For the assessment year 2002 -03, the petitioner has reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 11,00,83,102 and Rs. 11,00,83,102 respectively by way of monthly return in form A1. The respondent has issued a notice on January 31, 2007 wherein it is alleged that on July 08, 2004 the petitioner's place of business was inspected by the enforcement wing officials and they have sent a report to the effect that despatches to Kerala depot were immediately sold to Coimbatore and Erode dealers, that the sale bills bear the seal of STO, Velandevalam in Kerala, but not the sales tax check -post at Pichanur in Tamil Nadu. The goods received at Velandevalam were sold to the dealers on the same day. On that basis, an opinion has been formed by the assessing officer that the claim of the petitioner regarding the despatches made to Kerala depot are only branch transfer and not a sale was not correct and proposed to be rejected and treated as local sales. The petitioner by the letter dated February 13, 2007 sent a preliminary reply, reserving the right to file a final reply and asked for details of the orders placed by the ultimate buyers in all the 190 despatches and 580 sale invoices so as to enable the petitioner to give a final reply. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the details which they sought for as referred to above have not been furnished, which makes the petitioner handicapped in giving their final reply and hence a direction may be issued to the assessing officer to furnish the details referred to above.

(3.) THE point in dispute in this case is that the 190 despatches made to the Kerala depot is claimed as stock transfer to the depot at Kerala and it is not a sale at all. However, the respondent -assessing authorities proposed to refer the same as a local sales and not a stock transfer.