9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e different petitioners, are filed against the common respondents, viz., (i) National Dairy Development Board and (ii) State of Gujarat in its Finance Department. Special Civil Application No. 1673 of 1991 contains the following prayers, which are identical in the other four petitions: (A) To declare that rule 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 in so far as it restricts the claim of set-off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h invoice till payment. Note:--The amount in prayer (C) varies in the respective petitions. 2.. As far as prayer (A) is concerned, our attention is invited to the decision of the apex Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1992] 87 STC 186; AIR 1992 SC 2078 wherein the apex Court had an occasion to deal with similar rules being rules 41 and 41A of the Bombay Sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l have denied the benefit of set-off. But it chose to be generous and it extended the said benefit subject to deduction of one per cent of the sale price of such goods. Therefore, no valid grievance can be made in respect of such deduction when the very extension of the benefit of set-off is itself a boon or a concession. It is open to the rule-making authority to provide for a small abridgement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt against the petitioners and in favour of the Revenue. Prayer (A), therefore, deserves to be rejected. 3.. Coming to prayers (B) and (C) which are alternative, it appears to us that the petitions raise commercial disputes between the respective petitioners and the common supplier-NDDB. As per the settled legal position, in exercise of its extraordinary, prerogative and discretionary writ juri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
