INTERNATIONAL SWITCHGEARS Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition International Switch-gears, Chandigarh, a manufacturer of and dealer in electrical goods, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notice and the proceedings Under Section 14b of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, "the Act") as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

(2.) PETITIONER , a proprietory concern, was registered as a dealer under the Act (as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh) and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. One M/s Aggarwal Electric Store, Sector 22, Chandigarh purchased goods for Rs. 3,33,433.00 from M/s Kaycee Industries Limited, Munibai. Goods were brought from Mumbai to Chandigarh by Amritsar Transport Company. These goods were sold by M/s Aggarwal Electric Store to the petitioner by transfer of documents. A sale bill was also issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, after receiving the bill and the endorsed goods receipt, took delivery of the goods from the transporter's office situated in the transport area at Chandigarh. An animal-driven cart, belonging to one Jagga, was taken on hire on April 26, 1997 by the petitioner to bring the goods from the transport Area, Chandigarh to its business premises in Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh, The said cart carrying the goods was intercepted by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner for the purpose of checking under the Act and the goods were detained for verification. Cart-man produced the bill dated April 26, 1997 issued by M/s Aggarwal Electric Store showing the value of goods at Rs. 3,75,800/ -. The officer, after detaining the goods, issued a notice to the petitioner under Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 14b of the Act.

(3.) THE respondents have, in their reply, justified the detention of the goods on the ground that the person transporting the goods was carrying sale bill issued by the vendor, M/s Aggarwal Electric Store, in favour of the petitioner but the selling dealer had not charged the local sale tax. Goods were shown in the sale bill as "sale E-1 Transaction". Though the goods were taxable at the first stage of sale within the Union Territory, no sales tax had been charged. Therefore, the goods were rightly detained Under Section 14b and notice was served upon the person carrying the goods. It has also been pleaded that the present petition under Article 226 was not maintainable inasmuch as the order can be challenged by the petitioner, if he so wanted to do, by filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise and Taxation and another appeal, thereafter, before the Sales-tax Tribunal under the Act. Goods are said to have been released on May 20, 1997 against surety bonds furnished by the petitioner.