1970 (12) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter called the Act, assessing the petitioners to tax for the year ended on 31st March, 1965. The petitioners are dealers in hides and skins. Their turnover in inter-State sales was not liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tax assessed on the respective turnovers of the petitioners is less. The petitioners have challenged the assessment orders on the following two grounds: firstly, that the respondent has no jurisdiction to demand any amount in excess of the tax assessed; secondly, that under the Act before it was amended, the transactions in question were not exigible to tax and therefore whatever amounts were co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the assessment orders and the demand notices for recovery of amounts in excess of the tax assessed are clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. The second ground that the petitioners are entitled to exemption under section 10 of the Amendment Act is a ground which the assessees can urge in the remedies provided under the Act. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X