TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Sri K. Suman, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the petition papers. 3. The petitioner has relied on the purchase order dated 12-2-2009 whereunder the respondent has placed the purchase order on the petitioner for supply of 20000 WMT of Iron Ore Fines at the rate of Rs. 2,445.91 per WMT to be supplied at Krishnapatnam Port for export. The petitioner claims to have supplied the same under the Invoice dated 15-09-2009 bearing Bill No. KPT/10F/01/09-10 for the quantity of 19572.34 amounting to a sum of Rs. 4,78,72,182/- The Bill also states that it is against Form - 'H'. The petitioner contends that the respondent did not pay the amount due but in this regard issued a confirmation letter dated 03.05.2010. It is therefore contended that on acknowledging the same, the respondent had also undertaken regarding issue of Form - 'H'. Though there were certain correspondence relating to the issue of Form H, the respondent issued a confirmation of balance dated 04.06.2010. Subsequent thereto, there was exchange of correspondence between the petitioner and respondent whereby the petitioner was seeking for issue of Form-H and the respondent was explaining the reason for the del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s released by the respondent. It is therefore contended that the said DMRIPL in association with the petitioner-company had entered into two separate contracts dated 23.01.2009 with M/s. Tile Italia Mossaics Pvt. Ltd for supply of 10000 metric tonus of iron ore fines under each agreement. In that regard, the said DMRIPL, the petitioner and Tile Italia have also exchanged correspondence amongst themselves, the copies of which have been provided to the respondent. Though the entire transaction with regard to procurement and payment thereof is between DMRIPL and the petitioner, it is as per the general practice of the trade and at the request of the Associate Shipper, the respondent has issued the purchase order and agreed to facilitate the issue of Form H, as otherwise, the sale would include local Tax though the ore is exported. Keeping in view the nature of the letter of confirmation of purchase and the value of the same issued by the respondent, their ease is that it is not towards their liability to the petitioners but the same is on behalf of the DMR1PL which is the Associate Shipper. Since the issue of Form H was getting delayed, the confirmation letter dated 31,02,2010 was iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or supply of 20000 WMT Iron ore fines from the petitioner. The condition regarding issue of form H by the buyer, would indicate that the Ore is for export and the invoice dated 15.09.2009 at Annexure-B will show that the quantity of 19572.34 MT is supplied by the petitioner. The correspondences at Annexures-C to G have been exchanged between petitioner and the respondent relating to the issue of Form-H and about the delay in that regard. The respondent-company has addressed the letter dated 04-06-2010 (Annexure-H) to the petitioner confirming that balance to be paid to the petitioner is in a sum of Rs. 4,78,72,182/- which is the amount claimed in the instant petition after claiming the same by issue of statutory notices. 9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner by relying on the said documents would authoritatively contend that the purchase of the Iron Ore from the petitioner cannot be in dispute and in that circumstance, the confirmation letter would disclose that the value of the Iron ore supplied by the petitioner has not been paid by the respondent company. It is his contention that in the face of the said documents it is clear that the admitted dues has not been paid, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PL. The responsibility of the export obligation and the liability for default has also been placed on DMRIPL. In that context, though the validity of the agreement and the same being binding on the petitioner has been questioned by the petitioner, in my view, the said document in the light of the contentions urged in the objection statement, more particularly in the limited scope in the instant petition, cannot be brushed aside. 13. That apart to contend that DMRIPL is actually the purchaser of the Iron Ore Fines in the domestic market for the purpose of export and that the petitioner is also aware of this transaction, the respondent has relied on two contracts dated 23.01.2009 (Annexures-R4(a) & R(b)). The said contracts indicates that DMRIPL has agreed to buy the Iron Ore Fines for the purpose of export and the same indicates that it is on account, the petitioner herein. Though the body of the contract does not indicate the role of the petitioners except the title containing the name, the petitioners have subscribed their signature. Despite the respondent company not being a party to the said contract, the same is available with the respondent company and has been produced bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge to find the confirmation letter being issued voluntarily even without there being request for payment or for confirming the balance payable as per the books of account. 15. In that context, though the Form-H has been subsequently issued, the respondent-company thereafter addressed a letter to the Commercial Tax Department (Annexure-R12) indicating reasons for cancelling the Form-H, the respondent has also addressed a letter dated 09.12.2010 (Annexure-R13) to DMRIPL relating to the said transaction and also for closing the instant petition. The petitioner no doubt has filed its rejoinder and have subsequently filed a copy of the communication dated 20.05.2011 between two authorities of the trade tax to contend that on an inquiry at their end. the transaction is confirmed. No doubt, the letter addressed by the respondent to the Commercial Tax Department and MRIPL at Annexures-R12 and R13 are subsequent to the issue of statutory notice and the filing of the instant petition respectively, However, in the light of the totality of the defence taken by the respondent-company and that the demand for the amount was made for the first time by issue of the statutory notice, certainly th....