9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondents : T.P. Manoharan, Special Government Pleader (Pondy), ORDER :- M. JAICHANDREN J.-Since, the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, these writ petitions are taken up together and a common order is being passed. The above writ petitions had been filed praying for writs of declaration declaring the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 34 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that a number of orders had been passed by this court, in similar matters, dismissing the writ petitions by holding that the amendment in question is valid. One of such orders had been passed by this court, on April 30, 2009, in W. P. Nos. 26676, 43880, 43881 and 3185 of 2009, (Vasanthi Agencies, Through its Authorised Signatory, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... existing provisions of section 34 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967. He had further submitted that a number of orders had been passed by the various Division Benches of this court holding that the amendment introduced in section 34 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is valid. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the observation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and in view of the decisions cited supra, this court is of the considered view that the amendment introduced in section 34 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967, by the amendment Act 4 of 2000, cannot be held to be invalid. It cannot be said that the amendment in question contravenes the exi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
