9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 90 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxIncrease the indent of the sales tax exempted high speed diesel - Held that - 3rd respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 22.9.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the other persons concerned, if any. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 22.9.2012, to the 3rd respondent, along with a copy of this order - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent to allot willing fishermen to the petitioner bunk and increase the indent of sales tax exempted high-speed diesel. 2. Disposal of the representation dated 22.9.2012 within a specified period. Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent to allot 167 willing fishermen to the petitioner bunk and increase the indent of sales tax exempted high-speed diesel to 250.5 kilo litres per month. The petitioner relied on the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.170, dated 29.10.2004, passed by the Commercial Tax Department, and G.O.Ms.No.130, dated 29.10.2004, passed by the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief sought could be narrowed down to directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of the representation dated 22.9.2012 on merits and in accordance with the law. The learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents had no objection to such an order. Issue 2: The Court, considering the submissions from both sides, directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of the representation dated 22.9.2012 on merits and in accordance with the law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy. The directive included providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned individuals. The petitioner was instructed to furnish a copy of the representation to the 3rd respondent along with a copy of the court order. It was explicitly mentioned that the Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the specified directions, and no costs were awarded. M.P.No.1 of 2012 was closed as a result of this judgment.
|
