9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustainable objections raised by the department from time to time. For the aforesaid conclusions, the learned single judge has relied upon the observation made in the aforesaid Division Bench decision. It is relevant to note at this stage that the decision of the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 94 to 96 of 2000 Lavanya Enterprises v. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu [2006] 145 STC 442 (Mad). which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enal interest. Having regard to all these aspects, we do not find any justification to differ from the ultimate conclusion of the learned single judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The appellant demanded sales tax on the value of the sandalwood which was resisted by the respondent on the plea that since the goods were purchased for export against a pre-existing export orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sandalwood purchased by them in the auction held on February 25, 1999. State of Tamil Nadu was directed to release the goods without claiming demurrage and penalty. On the previous date of hearing, i.e., on March 21, 2006, counsel appearing for the respondent had brought to our notice that in pursuance to the directions given in the impugned order, the District Forest Officer passed an order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 003, as aforesaid, had been passed and the respondent is not liable to pay the sales tax and that the appellants had accepted those orders and the same have become final. He, however, insisted that the respondent was liable to pay demurrage charges for non-removal of the goods within the stipulated time. According to him, the goods kept on lying in the godown of the State between May 25, 1999 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the respondent could not be fastened with the liability to pay the demurrage charges or penalty, as the respondent was not responsible for the delay. Delay, if any, was caused by the appellant in not releasing the goods in spite of the specific directions issued by the High Court to that effect. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellants are directed to rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
