1972 (7) TMI 84

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....que, but under protest. This was not received. In those circumstances, the petitioner was obliged to pay the said sum of Rs. 1,000 in cash and take back the goods which were detained at the check post. With this background, the petitioner has filed this petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to refund the said sum of Rs. 1,000 so collected from him. The short facts are as follows: The petitioner is a registered dealer both under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act. On 12th July, 1969, he was removing certain brass sheets and circles weighing about 21/2 tons manufactured in his factory at Basin Bridge called "M/s. Mahaveer Metal Industries" to his godown at No. 83, Mulla....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and having regard to the record in this case, an offence under section 44 of the Act has been committed at all. In my view, the petitioner has not transgressed any provision of law. If it is discovered that while a person is transporting goods touching a check post en route and if such transport is merely to house the manufactured goods in the godown of the manufacturer and if that is established by clinching and acceptable evidence, then it cannot (sic) be said that neither section 44 of the Act nor the prescriptions therein have been transgressed. Section 44, though not expressly, by necessary implication, deals with a situation where the goods carried by the relative vehicles are subject to a "sale" or are intended for delivery pursuant....