9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of various unsustainable 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 was practically between the same parties though in respect of some other similar transactions, the State Government had filed appeal before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court by giving a reasoned order confirming the decision of the High Court. As a matter of fact, under almost similar circumstances ano ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the writ appeal directed the respondent to establish before the concerned authorities that they were entitled to the benefit under section 5(3) of the Act with respect to the 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 on February 22, 2002 directing the release of the bank guarantee furnished by the respondent with regard to the purchase of 33 tonnes of sandalwood. He had also brought t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly, the High Court directed the appellant to release the goods, if not already done so, without payment of any demurrage charges or penalty. The respondent was not responsible for the delay, the delay, if any, was caused due to the unreasonable stand taken by the appellant. We agree with the view taken by the High Court that 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 release the bank gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
