9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the respondent not to insist on payment of tax on agency purchases without issuing any legal and statutory notice in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in [1992] 87 STC 196 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti) and [1993] 90 STC 1 [Co-operative Sugars (Chittur) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu]. 2. According to the petitioner, it is a proprietory con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong with this writ petition, I find that on one occasion, that was on June 17, 2004 when the petitioner's vehicle was intercepted by the respondent, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 20,160 towards tax and surcharge in respect of invoice No. 1 and that the said amount was made under protest. Similarly, such payment of tax of a sum of Rs. 53,760 was made by the petitioner under invoice No. 2 on June ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner to work out its remedy by way of challenging such orders before the appropriate authorities, if the said order does not fit in to the provisions of section 42 of the TNGST Act. Therefore, when there is no cause of action that could be traced in this writ petition for countenancing the claim of the petitioner, there is no scope for granting any relief to the petitioner as prayed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
