CONTINENTAL EXPORTERS Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a registered dealer having its head office at Bangalore and it is a hundred percent export oriented unit. The petitioner purchased certain consignment on high sea sales and moved the same from Chennai Harbour to Delhi. The goods were detained on 14. 2. 2000 under goods detention order No. 166/99-2000 by the Assistant Commissioner, Enforcement (Central), Chennai. While that being so, in order to get the goods released, the petitioner approached the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who directed the third respondent to release the goods. But when the petitioner approached the third respondent, the third respondent insisted the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for the alleged tax liability in a sum of Rs. 23,000/ -. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner furnished bank guarantee and got the goods released. As against the detention order, the petitioner moved a revision before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in time, however, the compounding order has not been furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner was not able to produce the order before the Deputy Commissioner the second respondent. As the second respondent Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision on the ground that the compounding order has not been produced, by his order dated 28. 3. 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained a certified copy of the compounding order on 19. 4. 2002. On that day itself, the petitioner produced it before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner received that certified copy of the compounding order, however rejected to entertain the revision on the ground that he has already disposed of the revision for non-production of the certified copy of the compounding order. That order has been carried on further revision to the Joint Commissioner the first respondent, who has also dismissed the revision on the premise that the compounding order has not been produced before him. The correctness of the said order is now canvassed in the writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is absolutely no dispute that the revision petition filed before the Deputy Commissioner was came to be dismissed on 28. 3. 2002 for non-filing of the compounding order and the compounding order order has been produced before the Deputy Commissioner subsequent to that, who passed further order on 23. 4. 2002 on the ground that the revision made by the petitioner in the reference second cited could not be entertained on the sole ground that he has already dismissed the revision application. Thus, is evident that the petitioner has represented the revision petition along with the certified copy of the compounding order. When the compounding order was very much placed before the authority, he could have very well taken in to consideration the compounding order or otherwise consigned the same when the second revision was pending before the first respondent - Joint Commissioner. Having received the certified copy, non-suiting the petitioner for any relief on the simple ground of non-production of certified copy cannot be legally expected from a quasi judicial officer and thus the fairness in disposal of the cases is totally vanished.

(3.) I heard the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader and perused the material on record.