9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (11) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 286(2) of the Constitution and was illegal. This contention was upheld by the trial Court and on the ground that the assessment was bad on the foot just now mentioned and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. On appeal the learned District judge held that the assessment could be supported on the ground that there was no evidence in the case to show that the purchasers of the goods now in question did not purchase them for export outside the State, and he left open the other question whether the suit is or is not maintainable by reason of section 18-A of the General Sales Tax Act. That section provides that no suit or other proceedings shall except as expressly provided under this Act be instituted in any Court to set aside or modify any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further pointed out that the circumstance that the assessing officer had taken into account an ultra vires provision of the Act is, in this view, immaterial in determining whether the assessment is made under the Act. The phrase describes the provenance of the assessment and does not relate to its accuracy in point of law. The use of the machinery provided by the Act, not the result of that use, is the test. It is apparent that where the form of prayer did not use the very words but the substance is clear that a modification or setting aside the assessment is sought for, the plaintiff assessee has to seek the remedy provided under sections II and 12 to 12-D of the Act, which is a self-contained Act and prescribes a special machinery for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... immediately before the commencement of the Constitution of India shall continue to be levied, notwithstanding that the imposition of such tax is contrary to the provision contained in clause (2) of Article 286 of the Constitution. That these sales are saved from illegality by reason of the Sales Tax Continuance Order, 1950, has been upheld in two reported cases, namely, the East India Match Factory v. State of Madras[1954] 5 S.T.C. 269., where it is pointed out that if Article 286(2) applied the President's order issued thereunder justified the levy of the tax by the State of Madras up to 31st March, 1951. In Vedullapalli Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of Madras[1955] 6 S.T.C. 405., it was held that if the sales fell within Article 286(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
