9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Raghuvir, Senior Advocate (K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Asha G. Nair and Ms. Santhi Narayan, with him), for the respondents in all the petitions. D.A. Dave, Senior Advocate (U.A Rana, Advocate, with him), for the intervener. -------------------------------------------------- ORDER In the case of Indian Cement Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1988] 69 STC 305 (SC); (1988) 1 SCC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aka Government are quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 5,000 and this shall be shared equally by the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka." 2.. Pursuant to the said order proceedings were commenced in the State to recover the amounts of the sales tax which would have been paid but for the two notifications (now referred to as "the concess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able that the State should now seek to collect the concessional amounts from the petitioners. The provisions of articles 32 and 142 enabled this Court to do the just thing by the petitioners. 4.. Mr. Raghuvir, learned counsel for the State, responding to the discus- sion at the Bar, submitted that he would have no answer if these petitions were treated as review petitions. 5.. It seems to us tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re passed against them, a year or so after the date of the said order. Having regard to the provisions referred to above, it is, in our view, not just or equitable to permit the State to collect the concessional amounts. Having regard to the fair statement of learned counsel for the State, this result can best be achieved by treating these petitions as review petitions. We direct thereon that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
