9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under protest. Subsequently, the appellant herein filed W.P. Nos. 2703 to 2706 of 1967 (W.P. No. 2705 of 1967 Universal Match Works, Kovilpatti v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras-5) for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras to refund to the appellant the amounts so paid by them which was collected towards tax. These writ petitions along with other petitions came up before Veeraswami and Ramaprasada Rao, JJ., on 30th January, 1968. The Bench of this Court observed that the petitioners will be entitled to refund of the proportionate tax only on furnishing security therefor in each case to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. Thereafter, the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,956.22 together with interest. It was contended by the respondent, after narrating the events that have taken place, that they are entitled to claim the refund made to the appellant. The appellant contended before the trial court that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit relating to the sales tax matters and that the court is barred from entertaining the said suit in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Comorin Match Industries Limited v. Kovilpatti and Others [S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 20132023 of 1973, etc.]. It was further averred by the appellant (defendant) that the respondent herein has no right to question the judgment of the Supreme Court except to the extent to which any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... force on 30th August, 1969 with retrospective effect, and in view of the amended provisions of Act 28 of 1969, the respondent herein is entitled to claim refund amount of Rs. 11,000 and odd which was refunded to the appellant. 5.. It must be noted that in W.P. Nos. 2703 to 2706 of 1967, the order was passed on 30th January, 1968 holding that the appellant is entitled to refund of the proportionate tax only on furnishing security therefor to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. Since the appellant herein was aggrieved by the order directing them to furnish security, they filed several writ miscellaneous petitions in the said writ petitions and by an order dated 29th July, 1969, a Bench of this Court has observed that the Revenue will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
