( 1 ) PETITIONER is before me seeking to quash the detention order passed by the Deputy Commercial tax Officer, Group IV, Enforcement-Central, Chennai, vide annexure-E. Petitioner seeks for a further direction directing the respondent No. 1 to reimburse all the losses caused to him.

( 2 ) PETITIONER-COMPANY is having a registered office at Bangalore. He is registered under the karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Petitioner imported polypropylene from Exxon Mobile Asia Pacific, Singapore, five containers, weighing 99 M/ts under bill of lading under open general licence. The said goods were shipped from Singapore to chennai port on June 2, 2003. The goods reached Chennai port on June 16, 2003 and to ICD, bangalore (Customs Station), on June 21, 2003 and June 24, 2003. Respondent No. 1 passed an order of detention in terms of annexure-E. Petitioner filed objections in terms of annexure-F. In the meanwhile, petitioner filed an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, chennai, and during the pendency of the appeal, petitioner has filed this petition. Petitioner is questioning the detention order on various grounds in this petition. Essential ground raised by the petitioner is that Section 42 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the case. No sale has occurred in Tamil Nadu warranting detention. Notice was issued. Respondents entered appearance. In the objection statement respondents state that the petitioner did file an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Tribunal, the matter was heard and it was reserved for orders. They say that petition deserves to be dismissed in the light of pending proceedings before the Tribunal. On merits they justify their stand by relying on various provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. On noticing the pendency in Tamil Nadu, I directed the petitioner to file an affidavit in terms of my order dated August 5, 2003.

( 3 ) PETITIONER thereafter filed another affidavit in this Court. In the subsequent affidavit filed in this Court, petitioner states that a memo was filed seeking permission to withdraw the petition and orders were passed on July 31, 2003. Petitioner says that the objections have been filed to the compounding notice.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He invites my attention to the facts of this case to contend that there exits no jurisdiction for the Tamil Nadu sales tax authorities in the case on hand. Counsel refers to Article 286 in this regard. He refers to various judgments in support of his contention. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR2000 SC 3448 , 1999 (66 )ECC570 (SC ), 1999 (113 ) ELT753 (SC ), (2000 )10 SCC228 (Kiran Spinning Mills v. Collector of Customs) and judgment of the madras High Court reported in [2003] 129 STC 294 (State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu) Per contra, learned Government Pleader supports the order.

( 5 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I have carefully perused the impugned order. A reading of the impugned order would show that the goods are ordered to be detained to verify genuineness of the import transportation with reference to the registration certificate of the imported goods and relevant import documents, to verify the genuineness of the existence of the importer and to verify the past imports and payment of sales tax. Time has been given to file objections with regard to the detention order. Objections are also filed by the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did file an appeal before Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal and later he withdrew the same. In these circumstances, two points emerge for my consideration ; (a) conduct of the petitioner (b) merits of the matter. Reg : Conduct

( 6 ) IT is an admitted fact before me that the petitioner did file an appeal before the Tamil Nadu taxation Special Tribunal challenging the detent