2006 (11) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the light of the orders passed by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeals Nos. 101 and 102 along with 670 of 1995 dated July 18, 1996 (Hotel River View v. State of Tamil Nadu). The petitioner is a hotel recognised by the Tourism Department of Government of India. The respondent-State inserted entry No. 150 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 with effect from October 6, 1980 imposing ten per cent of sales tax on articles of food and drinks sold to the customers in three-star, four-star and five-star hotels recognised by the Tourism Department of the Government of India. The said entry was challenged in a number of writ petitions. Ultimately, on January 21, 1985, this court in the case of Sangu Chak .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mil Nadu) directed the respondentGovernment to pass orders on the waiver application. The Government then issued G.O. Ms. No. 157 dated April 22, 1996 directing the waiver for the period from February 1, 1985 to April 21, 1989 and in the said Government Order, the Joint Commissioner was appointed with the specific direction to go through various records of the hoteliers and report his findings with facts to the Government so as to enable the Government to decide on the eligibility of the waiver in each of the individual cases. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner appeared before the said Joint Commissioner and filed all details to prove that it is entitled to the benefit given under the said G.O. The Supreme Court disp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hed, as the petitioner has approached the second respondent as well as the first respondent by its representation dated January 24, 2006, it would be sufficient if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner. He also pointed out that it is the petitioner, who carried the matter to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 101, etc., of 1995 and in view of the interim order given by the Supreme Court and the Government Order for waiver, there is no reason as to why the petitioner s name has not been included in G.O. Ms. No. 140, which is the outcome of the report submitted by the Joint Commissioner. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. I also hea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X