COMMON ORDER:

The petitioner has come up with the present writ petitions, challenging the orders of assessment passed by the first respondent in all these writ petitions, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in respect of the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004.

2. I have heard Mr.C.Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Haja Naziruddin, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes). Since the petitioner bracketed a portion of the turnover as branch transfer and claimed to have paid tax in other States, but the same was disallowed by the first respondent, the petitioner has also impleaded the States of Kerala and Karnataka apart from the Union Territory of Pondicherry and the Union of India, as parties to the writ petitions. However, notices to them have been dispensed with, in view of the nature of the disposal that I propose to give to the writ petitions.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner is a registered dealer, manufacturing cement and effecting both local sales as well as inter-State sales. They have a factory at Madukkarai in Coimbatore District. The petitioner claims that the cement manufactured at Madukkarai is despatched, by way of stock transfer, to their warehouses and depots located in the States of Kerala and Karnataka and also in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and that thereafter, it is sold in the respective States and Union Territory, after paying local sales tax in the respective States.

4. On the basis that the cement manufactured in Tamil Nadu is despatched to their warehouses and depots in other States and sold only thereafter, the petitioner made a claim for exemption on the turnover relating to branch/stock transfer. But suspecting the claim of the petitioner to be untrue and claiming that the petitioner was moving goods to other State buyers from the factory site itself to reach the ultimate buyers in other States, the first respondent started issuing pre-assessment notices. Though the petitioner filed Form "F" declarations, together with proof of payment of taxes in other States, the first respondent proceeded to pass orders of assessment dated 13. 2009, 3. 2009 and 3. 2009 in respect of the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 respectively on the ground that the petitioner failed to file the other statements and records as stipulated in Rule 4(3-A) of The Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1957. Aggrieved by these assessment orders, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petitions, by-passing the alternative remedy of appeal.

5. Though several issues are raised in the writ petitions, it is not necessary or proper to go either into factual details or into the merits of the claim made on either side, in view of the admitted position that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. If the petitioner is found to be not justified in bypassing the alternative remedy, then they should be directed to avail the same. If the petitioner is found to be justified in directly approaching this Court, the only remedy that could be granted to them is to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer. In either case, I need not go into the merits of the claim. Therefore, the only question that I propose to decide is as to whether there was sufficient justification for the petitioner to invoke Article 226 and if so, to what remedy, the petitioner would be entitled.

6. The petitioner seeks to justify the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, bypassing the alternative remedy, primarily on two grounds viz., (i) that there was violation of the principles of natural justice and (ii) that there was a failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 6-A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

COMPLAINT OF VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE:

7. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the writ jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked without exhausting the alternative