9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ane grown by them. Pursuant to the said resolution of the Board of Management, the appellant purchased sugarcane during the years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. It is averred in the petition that at the time of the purchase of sugarcane from the growers in Andhra Pradesh the purchase of sugarcane was exempted from tax under the general sales tax laws; yet the Assistant Director of Agriculture-third respondent-issued a show cause notice to the appellant demanding the tax at the rate of Rs. 10 per M.T. of sugarcane purchased by it from the growers during 1973 season under the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The appellant made efforts with the authorities to desist from making the demand of tax, but failed in their effort, with the result that Writ Petition No. 516 of 1975 was filed before the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh questioning amongst other things the legality of the demand made by the third respondent. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by its judgment dated 26th September, 1977, allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant, quashed the notices and directed the third respondent to determine, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1978, a copy of which is annexure D. Still dissatisfied, a revision petition was preferred by the appellant under section 21(a)(3) of the Act before the Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Agriculture, Hyderabad (first respondent). That revision petition was dismissed by the first respondent finding the same without any merit. Aggrieved from the orders of the authorities, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 5037 of 1980 in this Court praying for the quashing of the orders, viz.,: (i) Order No. RCO. 380/1977 dated 17th February, 1978 issued by the third respondent (annexure C); (ii) Order No. (F2) 1558/1975 dated 29th April, 1978 issued by the second respondent (annexure D); and (iii) Order No. 3172/IA and S/78-4 dated 9th November, 1978 issued by the first respondent (annexure E). At the time of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the effect that since the prayer is to quash the orders passed by the authorities under the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, by issuing a writ of certiorari, this Court could not get jurisdiction as it has no supervisory powers over the authorities withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te unless and until the payment of price is made by the factory owner and that price having been paid in the factory premises the cause of action in part shall be deemed to have arisen within the State of Karnataka. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments in Shiv Shanker Lal Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay AIR 1968 Delhi 295, Gopal Vinayak Godse v. Union of India AIR 1971 Bom 56, Dr. P.S. Rao v. Union Government (1972) 2 Kar LJ 302, State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties AIR 1985 SC 1289 and Damomal Kausomal Raisinghani v. Union of India AIR 1967 Bom 355. The learned counsel also placed reliance on para 16.249 at page 1345 of Constitutional Law of India by H.M. Seervai (Vol. III, Third Edn.) which reads: "The newly added sub-article (1A) to article 226 introduces an additional basis of jurisdiction, namely, the whole or part of a cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of a court. This is clear from the use of the words 'the power conferred by Clause 1...............may also be exercised..........Therefore jurisdiction to issue writs can be exercised (i) by a court within whose jurisdiction a person or authority (inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to which reference has been made earlier also, a demand notice was issued by the third respondent calling upon the appellant to remit a sum of Rs. 19,285.30 stating that that amount represents the purchase tax at the rate of Rs. 10 per metric ton on 1928-53 metric tons of sugarcane. The appellant challenged the legality of that notice before the Andhra Pradesh High Court by filing W.P. No. 516 of 1975 and the main grievance agitated before the Bench was that the impugned demand notices had been issued without proper enquiry as to where the purchases had taken place and without offering any opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence as to where it has made the purchase of sugarcane. Finding that the liability to pay the tax was not satisfactorily determined by the third respondent, the issuance of the notice was found arbitrary as it had been done without giving adequate opportunity to the appellant to show that the purchases were not made in the State of Andhra Pradesh. As a result of this finding the writ petition was allowed and the case was remanded back to the third respondent for deciding the matter in accordance with law. 7.. After the decision of the writ by the Andhr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
