ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER V W H DEETH AND COMPANY THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. ATHITHAN STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected appeals. The driver of a lorry carrying goods was found not to be in possession of the documents mentioned in s. 44 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. In one of these appeals, the offence was compounded and the driver paid the fine. But in the other, against the notice served on the driver, the owner of the goods appeared and offered to pay the fine. But the Departmental officials took the view that, since the notice had been given to the driver, no receipt could be given to the owner of the goods. The owner of the goods in each of these cases filed petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution which were allowed. The Revenue has brought these appeals.

(2.) ON behalf of the appellant reliance is placed upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 2938 to 2940 of 1970 to which one of us was a party. In that case, agreeing with the Dy. CIT of Commercial Taxes, it was held that when the proceedings were against the driver, the owner of the goods had no locus standi to present the petition. Another ground was mentioned by the Bench, namely, that the petition could not be entertained at the particular stage. Though the State is entitled to rely on this judgment, we find that it was a case dismissed in limine at the admission stage and did not receive full consideration.

(3.) SO far as the appeal in which compounding has been done, we can do nothing for the assessee because compounding is more or less by the consent of the dealer are the driver concerned. In the other case also we decline to interfere. But at the same time we should observe that, if the owner of the good came forward to compound the offence, he should be allowed to do so by the Department. On that, view the appeals are allowed. No costs.