AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.—The above writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent, Tamil Nadu
Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai made in O.P. No. 351 of 2003 dated March 27, 2003.
It is stated that the petitioner is an importer and exporter and dealer in general goods and is an agent for imported goods from foreign countries
covered by import documents prescribed by the Government of India. It is stated that when the goods reached Chennai Harbour, their clearing
agent produced the documents before the customs authorities and paid the customs duty and cleared the goods and despatched 15 pallets out of
77 pallets. Those 15 pallets were transported through lorry under cover of proper documents. The officials of the second respondent searched the
clearing agent''s godown and they served the detention order in G.D. Nos. 117, 118 of 2002-2003. That order came to be challenged before the
Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy. It is as
against the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred the above writ petition.
The writ petition came up before this Court on May 27, 2003 and a division Bench of this Court, following the earlier order in a batch of writ
petitions rendered in W.P. No. 7329 of 2003, etc., dated March 11, 2003, disposed of the writ petition with an observation that if the tax liability
found in the impugned order is satisfied by the petitioner, the goods shall be released. The petitioner has preferred a SLP before the Supreme
Court as against the order passed by this Court on May 27, 2003 and the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 17728 of 2003 dated January 27,
2004 remitted the matter to this Court and requested to dispose of the writ petition on merits. On the basis of the order of the Supreme Court
made in SLP (Civil) No. 17728 of 2003, the matter is listed before us today.
We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the second respondent. Learned counsel for
the petitioner produced before us a copy of the order made in W.P. No. 37097 of 2003 dated December 23, 2003* wherein a division Bench of
this Court held that there was no legal justification for the action taken by the authorities and directed that the goods be released to the petitioner as
the initial attachment itself is one which cannot be sustained in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if
similar order is passed in the case of the petitioner as well. Learned Special Government Pleader has no serious objection for passing similar order
in this case as well. Accordingly, following the earlier order passed in Writ Petition No. 37097 of 2003 dated December 23, 2003 (Amber Imbex
v. Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal)* following order is passed in this writ petition as well.
We find no legal justification for the action taken by the authorities in this case. The goods shall be released to the petitioner as the initial attachment
itself is one which cannot be sustained in law. The petitioner, however, shall remove the goods from the Port under the supervision of the officers of
the enforcement wing who shall ensure that the goods are moved out of the State. Petitioner shall also give an undertaking that no part'' of the
goods shall be sold in Tamil Nadu or by way of inter-State sale from Tamil Nadu. Petitioner shall also furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.
2,00,000 (rupees two lakhs only) to ensure compliance with the terms of this order. The reasonable expenses incurred by the State in deputing its
officers to ensure movement of the goods from the place of storage to the border of the State and beyond shall also be borne by the petitioner.
The movement of goods can commence immediately after the bank guarantee and undertaking are furnished by the petitioner.
The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.