9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover any tax from the petitioner for the period October 1, 1988 to September 30, 1989 inasmuch as the petitioner alleges that he could not operate his brick-kiln nor he had made any sales during the said period. 2.. The petitioner is manufacturer of bricks. He had opted to pay sales tax in lump sum in terms of the scheme that was framed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated January 25, 1989 before Sales Tax Officer, Sector-II, Allahabad to the effect that his application may be treated as withdrawn. The request of the petitioner was, however, turned down on the ground that there was no provision under the scheme which permitted withdrawal of the application having once been made. The petitioner was informed accordingly. It is in this background that the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay sales tax in a lump sum in lieu of the tax. For that purpose the sales tax in a lump sum. In our view, the liability arising under such an agreement is not related to the actual turnover of the petitioner. The petitioner having elected to pay the sales tax in a lump sum could not be permitted to turn round and contend that he was not liable to pay the amount agreed to be paid by him becaus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on him because the same was not accepted in time. We cannot accept the submission for more than one reason. The contention raised is essentially one of fact and it was never raised earlier at any stage before the appropriate authority. Again the question whether an enforceable contract between the parties had come into existence or not, cannot be appropriately decided in these proceedings. The pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
