Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner, claiming to be the largest exporter of sandal wood, prays for a mandamus to forbear the respondents from making any claim or demand for the payment of demurrage charges and penal charges from the petitioner in respect of the purchase orders issued by notices dated 7.9.1994, 8.9.1994 and 13.9.1994 by respondents-2 to 4 respectively.

2. The petitioner was the successful bidder at the following auctions held for sale of sandal wood by the respondent/Forest Department:

7. Per contra, Ms.Selvi George, appearing for the respondents, very vehemently contends that the petitioner, from the very inception, had been adopting devious methods to circumvent the basic obligations. Without placing before the authorities the alleged export orders/agreements, the petitioner went on refusing to pay sales tax. The entitlement to exemption was possible only on production of the export orders which was never complied with. It was only to delay his obligation to make payment of the sale price/instalments, the petitioner went on raising the issue of a liability of sales tax and to make it appear as though the petitioner was not at default. The instructions issued by the Government were very clear and the Department cannot overlook the instructions from the highest officials to collect the tax due. Learned counsel also contended that during the relevant period, there was a ban on export of sandal wood and hence, the claim that he had export orders cannot be sustained. Assuming that the petitioner had export orders/agreement the petitioner cannot rely upon the same, as the export itself was banned. The petitioner was venturing into a series of writ petitions and as he was not able to obtain any favourable orders, the petitioner had come forward again by filing one more writ petition for the same relief, which was impermissible.

8. I have considered the submissions of both sides and in the background of the pleadings and contentions as stated above, the following points would require determination:

(i) Whether in a case where the purchaser pleads that the purchase was made pursuant to an Export order/ agreement, he could be held liable to pay the tax as a pre-condition for the release?
(ii) Whether there was any ban order by the Government of India for exporting sandal wood during the relevant period?

16. Point No.(ii):

A contention was raised that during the relevant point of time, there was a ban of export of sandal wood. Not only the respondents have not produced any material to substantiate the same, but also the petitioner has placed before the Court, the letter showing that the Central Government had permitted the petitioner to export. Apart from the letters of the petitioner to the respondents referring to the permission granted by the Central Government, the petitioner has also placed before the Court the letter of the Government of India to the petitioner dated 28.11.1997 in Letter No.74/5/97/PC III/ 2791, which also refers to the earlier correspondence. Moreover, this defence by the respondents appears to be a routine defence which is blindly taken by the respondents without any effort to verify the facts correctly. The same defence appears to have been taken in the case dealt with by the Division Bench as dealt with in paragraph 19 of the Division Bench order and rejected by the Court. Further, as pointed out above, no positive material has been placed before the Court to show that export of sandal wood was banned during the relevant period. There is also no specific pleading by the Government/first respondent in his counter affidavit.