11.Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent, has referred to the del credere agency agreement and various clauses contained therein and submitted that fixing of liability on the petitioner is just and proper and the impugned assessment orders call for no interference. Further, it is submitted that non-compliance of Rule 26(6)(a) and (b) is sufficient to hold the petitioner liable for payment of the taxes and penalty, as demanded. Therefore, as per the agreement condition, the petitioner is bound to pay the tax. Further, it is submitted that in the reply given by the petitioner to the show cause notices, they have accepted that they have handled the goods and having taken such a stand, contrary stand cannot be taken in these writ petitions. Further, the plea that there are contradictions in the show cause notices and the averments were vague, were never raised by the petitioner, in their reply dated 20.04.2004 and these points are canvassed for the first time before this Court. Further, it is submitted that whether the goods went to Pollachi and received by M/s.Nandhini Polymers, is a factual issue, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in a writ petition. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench, dated 25.11.2002, in W.P.Nos.19262 to 19264 of 2000 [Parikh Metal Corporation v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Peddunaickenpet South Circle, Chennai and Others], in which, the terms of the agreement were interpreted and it was held that the dealer therein has not acted as an agent, but there is only the principal to principal relationship and the said decision will apply to the case on hand. With the above submissions, the learned Additional Government Pleader, sought to sustain the impugned assessment orders.
