9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is for recovery of price of the goods and in the suit amount is included a sum of Rs. 5,44,925 which is stated to be due from the first defendant in lieu of ST-1 forms. The application which has led to the order under challenge being passed was moved with the idea of getting ST-1 forms from the defendant even before the suit was decided. The reason for this is that in the meantime, the plaintiff h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld reduce the taxable liability of the plaintiff qua the sales tax order and it would reduce the defendant's liability in the suit to the extent of the claim qua the ST-1 forms. In appeal, it was urged that the learned court had no jurisdiction to pass the order regarding the delivery of ST-1 forms to the defendant as this was the subject-matter of the suit. This argument is fallacious. No doubt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion or decision of the liability of the first defendant qua the goods by this order. In any event, whatever the situation might have been the necessary forms had to be delivered to the plaintiff. It is also urged by the counsel for the appellant that the forms are not to be delivered to the plaintiff because the wrong act is being sought to be applied. The argument qua this point is that the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
