9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (1) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod which covered also the year 1953-54, to the second respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Special Circle, Madras, and although he had pleaded before him, that he had been taxed by the former Travancore-Cochin State on the same turnover, he was assessed to sales tax, by order exhibit P-2 dated 15th November, 1956. Not being able to realise the tax, the second respondent requested the third respondent, the District Collector, Trichur, to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act, who accordingly caused a memo exhibit P-4 dated 20th May, 1958, to be issued to the petitioner, through the fourth respondent, the Deputy Tahsildar of Mukundapuram, Trichur district. This petition is to quash exhibits P-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r can succeed on this contention only if it can be shown, that on the face of it, exhibit P-2 is lacking in jurisdiction. His learned counsel was only able to point out that in exhibit P-2, there is no finding, that the delivery of the goods sold took place in the Madras State so as to constitute inter-State sales; but, in my view, the material finding in exhibit P-2 implies this, the finding being, "for the year 1953-54 their accounts disclosed a net turnover under inter-State sales to buyers in Madras State". It is not possible to infer that the second respondent was not aware of the ingredients of inter-State sales in recording this finding in exhibit P-2. It may be mentioned, that it was in pursuance of a notice for submitting a return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Additional Solicitor-General, that other remedies which were available under the U.P. Sales Tax Act not having been pursued, the respondent was not entitled to relief, was overruled, as it appeared that this objection had been abandoned by the AdvocateGeneral in the High Court. The Court then proceeded to hold that under section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, the respondent's claim for refund was well-founded. It will be observed that the vital distinction in the present case is, that the assessment order exhibit P-2 stands, and cannot be quashed by me. There is therefore no scope for the application of section 72 of the Indian Contract Act. The petitioner has therefore to be denied any remedy; but he had his remedies for improper as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
