9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994. 2.. The petitioners have sought to impugne the demand as according to them it is contrary to the mandate of article 285(1) of the Constitution which prohibits imposition of any tax by the State Government against the Union of India. The respondents have, however, defended the impugned demand and it was contended that the petitioners were dealers withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ys owned by the Union of India and the demand is raised by an authority constituted by the State Government. In all most similar situation, the apex Court in Union of India v. State of Mysore AIR 1977 SC 127 held that jurisdiction of High Court to issue writ in such matters was not excluded by article 131. 4.. Coming to the impugned demand (annexure A), it is clearly in violation of the mandate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The tax was imposed on the sale of goods. At the time of the sale, the goods belonged to the Railways. In view of the provisions of article 285(1) of the Constitution, such sales were immune from taxation under the State law. That was also the view of the High Court. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed, but no order as to costs." 5.. The demand notice issued by respondent No. 3 was, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
