TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (12) TMI 427
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it was found that the goods in transit were not supported by commensurate transit documents. It is the version of the petitioner that the petitioner paid this amount and sought for release of the goods. However, the officials of the Commercial Taxes Department nevertheless, did not release the goods, inter alia, on the ground that the consignee to whom the goods were supposed to be transported was a person who was in arrears of tax for the months of April and May 2006; that the goods being one consigned to him and belonging to him, the goods are nevertheless required to be detained for realising such tax due to the department by the consignee. It appears, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under section 62(1) of the Act, as it was found that the authority which had unreasonably and without justification, detained the goods without releasing the same even after payment of the penalty, etc. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who heard the appeal, in terms of his order dated November 7, 2006 (annexure D) allowed the appeal, set aside the order of attachment and also the notice served on the petitioner for recovery of arrears of the fictitious assessee, who is th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment can definitely enforce the tax liability of the consignee as against the goods in question; that as the tax remained unpaid, it is still open to the respondent to detain the goods, till realisation of such tax, etc. In the wake of the not so cogent and consistent stand taken by the respondent, the matter remained on board of this court without either issuing a mandamus or dismissing the writ petition and in the wake of such developments, this court had noticed that the act of granting registration to a dealer-the consignee of the goods in question-even without verification of the antecedents, existence and such other related facts, amounts to registering a firm in a hurried manner, which was not a very healthy development on the part of the officials of the department, who, otherwise would be quite lethargic and this situation was directed to be looked into by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and to take necessary action against the officials if found to have erred in any manner while granting registration to the consignee firm, the so-called fictitious person according to the respondent. In the wake of such development, this court on October 1, 2007 had passed the fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case where this court should not only issue a mandamus, but also the costs, etc. 4.. If an order or direction issued pursuant to a quasi-judicial order like the order of the first appellate authority is not complied with or given effect to, a mandamus is issued as a matter of course by this court to ensure compliance of the directive, but in the present case, bona fides of many persons including the petitioner who lays claim to the goods in question is not free from doubt. It is for this reason, I am hesitant to issue a mandamus as prayed for. 5.. Be that as it may, before passing final order, it is necessary that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes should place an affidavit before this court undertaking to complete the proceedings now initiated against the erring officials and take it to its logical conclusion and also to state about the steps that can be initiated for enhancing the security deposit that should be insisted for grant of registration as the present security deposit, i.e., cash deposit of Rs. 10,000 in respect of the registration for dealers whose turnover is more than 25,00,000 appears to be too inadequate, particularly in circumstances of the present nature. Fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ections of the court; that the petitioner is a person who has paid the penalty amount that had been levied by the check-post officer, which is not disputed by the respondent also, and in such circumstance, in the absence of any other person coming forward to claim the goods or balance amount after meeting all taxes and penalty, from the proceeds of the goods, such balance amount that has to be necessarily given to the petitioner in the absence of any other rival claimant. While everything is not proper or in order in the present case and there appears to be considerable inconsistencies, even possible misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, it turned out that the officials of the Commercial Tax Department also have to share the blame for the situation, as granting of registration in the name of a fictitious person, is not an act which can be either appreciated or lauded. Though the learned Additional Government Advocate would urge the court that the petitioner should be dealt with commensurately and filing such writ petition should be discouraged, etc., in the light of the above observation, I do not think it is necessary in the present case to issue such a direction again....