9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (7) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. At the same time, the petitioner also filed C.M.Ps. Nos. 7154 of 1968 and 7155 of 1968 in the said writ petitions praying for stay of all further assessment proceedings for the respective years pending disposal of the said writ petitions. The writ petitions and the civil miscellaneous petitions came up for admission and on 7th May, 1968, this Court directed the issue of rule nisi in the writ petitions and passed an interim order of stay in the civil miscellaneous petitions in the following terms: "That all further assessment proceedings for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69 in respect of the petitioners in W. Ps. Nos. 1857 and 1858 of 1968 on the file of the respondent and enforcing any of the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns and contending that in the face of the order of this Court, the notice issued by the respondents was neither competent nor proper. On 20th May, 1968, the respondents sent a reply inviting the petitioner's attention to section 21(5) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and contending that the registering authority was competent to demand security for proper payment of Government dues and calling upon the petitioner to pay the security on or before 1st June, 1968. At the same time, they stated that that has nothing to do or interfere with the writ petitions filed by the petitioner. It is at this stage the petitioner filed the present civil miscellaneous petitions for taking action against the respondents for contempt of orders of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ales Tax Act of 1959 and on that basis they were required not to take any further assessment proceedings for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69 in respect of the petitioner, pending further orders on the petitions. As I extracted already, the notice dated 9th May, 1968, categorically informed the petitioner that according to the provisions in force the petitioner was liable to tax on the transactions effected by him as a registered dealer. It is conceded before me that the "provisions in force" referred to in the said notice are the identical provisions whose validity has been challenged in the writ petitions before this Court and with respect to which alone stay order has been issued, Consequently, in issuing the notice dated 9th May, 1968, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
