The judgment establishes that under the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, challenges against penalties imposed should be pursued through the prescribed revision process, and civil suits may not be maintainable for such matters.

These second appeals have been filed against the judgments and decrees, dated 211. 1995, made in A.S.Nos.161, 162 and 163 of 1994, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Erode, Periyar District, reversing the judgments and decrees, dated 29.09.1994, made in O.S.Nos.581, 583 and 585 of 1993, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Erode, Periyar District.

2. Inasmuch as the issues involved in all these appeals are one and the same, a common order is being passed. The plaintiff in the suits in O.S.Nos.581, 583 and 585 of 1993 is the appellant in the present second appeals. The suits have been filed by the plaintiff praying to declare the notices, dated 23.03.1993, as illegal and arbitrary, and for a mandatory injunction to direct the second defendant to release the lorries, with the consignment of 145 bags of poppy seeds, along with the relevant records that were seized.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the plaintiff, are as follows:

a) The plaintiff is a dealer in poppy seeds (kasakasa) and other commodities at Calicut in Kerala State. The plaintiff used to purchase poppy seeds from Gauhati, in the State of Assam and the goods were transported to other places through lorries. Prior to 12.03.1993, the tax levied on poppy seeds, in accordance with serial No.173 of the First Schedule annexed to the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, was 8% and the tax was being levied at the point of first sale in the State. From 12.03.1993, the rate of the tax was reduced to 5%. As per Section 44 of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, it was mandatory for the owner, or any person in charge of the goods vehicle to carry with him a bill of sale, or delivery note or such other documents, as may be prescribed as well as the goods vehicle record of the trip sheet. The check post officials have been empowered to inspect the goods while in transit. The plaintiff has purchased 145 bags of poppy seeds weighing 10,000 kilograms, as per Bill Nos.177, 176 and 178, dated 12.03.1993. The poppy seeds, which were the goods in transit and the subject matter of the suits, are listed in Sl.No.173 of the First Schedule of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The goods were purchased by the plaintiff from Mahavir Trading Company, Imphal, in the State of Manipur and the said goods were arranged to be transported through Bikaner Assam Road Lines.

b) The vendor had undertaken to transport the consignment from Imphal to Gauhati and from Gauhati to Calicut, the said road lines had its Divisional Office at Erode. For various valid reasons, it was the usual practice of the Bikaner Assam Road Lines to unload the consignment in their Divisional office at Erode and to reload the consignment and transport the same to Calicut through a suitable carrier.

c) Under the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, the poppy seeds cannot be taxed by the State of Tamilnadu, since the movement of the goods was in pursuance of an interstate sale, involving the State of Assam and the State of Kerala. The goods in question were only passing through the State of Tamil Nadu and there was no sale of the said goods in the State of Tamil Nadu.

d) On 23.03.1993, the said consignment of poppy seeds and the lorries by which, they were transported was checked at Erode by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Shankari. Thereafter, show cause notices have been issued, as though the said consignments were being unloaded at Veerappan chatiram. Since the appellant had no occasion or necessity to unload the consignment at Veerappan Chatiram, the averments in the show cause notices were false.

e) The poppy seeds were being transported in the lorries bearing Registration Nos.TN J 9904, TNS 9149 and CAS 3690 and the said lorries were detained and handed over to the second defendant based on frivolous grounds. The plaintiff had come to Erode, on 24.03.1993, and had presented an objection petition in the office of the inspecting officials. However, the goods