2014 (3) TMI 780

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alwood which same was confirmed by the 1st respondent by his letter dated 12.9.2002. Though the petitioner was directed to pay 12% sales tax on the total sale amount for 33.000 MT, since the petitioner has participated in the auction conducted by the 1st respondent and purchased the sandalwood for the purpose of moving the same out of the State of Tamil Nadu to the State of Uttar Pradesh, the inter state movement arises as an incident of the contract of sale, according to the petitioner, he was liable to pay tax at 4% only. 2. In this regard, the petitioner has filed W.P.Nos.35965 and 35966/2002 before this Court and also filed W.P.M.P.Nos.53861 to 53866 of 2002 in which by a Common order dated 18.9.2002, this Court has directed the peti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Writ Petition in W.P.No.579 of 2004 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by this Court by order dated 21.1.2004. 5. Further, according to the petitioner, the respondents misconstrued the modification order passed by this Court and directed the petitioner to issue fresh bank guarantee for Rs.12,08,892/- and the 1st respondent is retaining the bank guarantee in Ref.No.31/17 dated 5.9.2002 issued by the Bank of India for a sum of Rs.19,73,598/- for 18.5 MT of Sandalwood. Hence the present Writ Petition. 6. Learned Senior Counsel representing the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the overseas sale and inter state sale have been involved in this transaction. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the petitioner as per the letter of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 28.1.2002 was released to the petitioner by the 1st respondent instead of 2nd respondent. The learned Special Government pleader would also submit that for the balance of 14.5 tonnes, the petitioner has to pay sales tax. Hence, the bank guarantee for Rs.19,73,598/- was with held by the department. Hence, according to the learned Special Government Pleader for tax, the present Writ Petition has to be dismissed. 8. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that no bank draft has been presented by the petitioner in favour of the 1st respondent. He would further submit that if any Fixed Deposit is released, the Government will ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iled in the form of typed set, it is seen that the Commercial Tax Officer, Salem, vide their letter No.ROC.No.2256/2002 dated 5.9.2003 has allowed for exemption of Tax for Overseas tunrover for a sum of Rs.1,64,46,650/-. The first respondent issued a letter dated 5.3.2007 by saying that turnover has not attracted as exempted from tax. 13. Now, the contention of the petitioner is that after issuing certificate by the Commercial Tax Officer for exemption of tax, the first respondent is not expected to retain the amount of Rs.19,73,598/-. Hence, he prays that the said amount has to be returned to the petitioner. 14. The contention of the first respondent is that even though the second respondent as per letter dated 5.9.2003 has given exe....