EURO GRAIN LIMITED Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners imported sugar and pulses. Prior to the arrival of the consignment, the petitioners applied in the appropriate form for issuance of 20 way-bills covering cargo of 14,000 metric tons of sugar. The respondent "No. 1 directed the petitioners to appear before him with the relevant documents. The petitioners claim to have appeared before the respondents but the respondents did not issue the way-bills as claimed by the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the action of the respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal. The respondent No. 1 contended that the application of the petitioners had been rejected because the requirement was not bona fide or reasonable.

(2.) By an order dated September 20, 1999, the Tribunal directed the respondent No. 1 to reconsider the matter after giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. The respondent No. 1 was directed to pass a reasoned order. The petitioners duly appeared before the respondent again. The respondent No. 1 passed an order recalling his earlier order rejecting the petitioner application but stating in the order that the petitioners' had not paid the tax on the sugar which was previously imported and sold by it. The petitioners challenged this order before the Tribunal again. The Tribunal set aside the order of the respondent No. 1 but remanded the matter back to the respondent No. 1 for reconsideration.

(3.) According to the petitioners the Tribunal erred in not indicating in its order that the petitioners could not be refused way-bills on the ground of non-payment of tax. It is submitted that in a previous case No. RN-334 of 1999 the Tribunal had, at the time of passing the order of remand specifically directed the respondent No. 1 to dispose of this application of the petitioners for way-bills and added "the applicants' prayer for way-bill shall not be refused solely on the ground of non-payment of tax".