2008 (12) TMI 707 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging the proceedings initiated by a competent authority, appointed under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963? Held that - This court is of the considered view that the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that this court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition is devoid of merits. Since the petitioner is based at Chennai and a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this court, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents, with regard to the jurisdiction of this court, cannot be sustained. From the records available, it is seen that the writ petition had been admitted by this court, on January 10, 2003, and rule nisi had been issued calling for the records relating to the matter. In such circumstances, in view of the limited relief sought for by the petitioner and in the interest of justice, this court is inclined to issue a direction to the first respondent, without going into the merits of the case, to comply with the request of the petitioner, within a specified period.

Summary

In the High Court of Madras, the petitioner, a dealer in stainless steel utensils, is registered under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner made sales of stainless steel utensils and direct inter-state sales to buyers outside Tamil Nadu. The first respondent issued a notice under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, alleging that the petitioner sent consignments with bogus consignee details. The petitioner requested copies of records supporting the notice but was not provided. The first respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable and the court lacked jurisdiction. However, the court disagreed, stating the petitioner's location in Chennai gave it jurisdiction. The court directed the first respondent to provide the petitioner with relevant documents within four weeks, allowing the petitioner to file objections within four weeks thereafter. The court disposed of the writ petition with these directions and no costs were awarded.