9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit of an adjustment for future, do not deserve any discretionary and equitable relief in our writ jurisdiction. It may be that there is an obligation to issue the Form, but having found that such a request is made belatedly and is barred by delay and laches, and secondly, it is only on the version of the petitioners that we decline to exercise our writ jurisdiction. - Decided against the petitioner - Writ Petition No. 1067 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2016 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And G. S. Kulkarni, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mrs. Lata Desai with Dr Pallavi Divekar and Ms Ashwini Pawar i/by Divekar Co For the Respondent : Mr N D Deshpande, AGP ORDER P. C. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 2009-2010, of ₹ 26,16,991/. On receipt of the same, once again the request was renewed but because the respondent No.5 failed, the order of assessment was passed and assessing the tax liability. 4. The petitioners apprehending recovery of the amount under the assessment order, firstly, approached the respondent No.5 and thereafter filed this writ petition. 5. Reliance is placed on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and particularly that of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of Modern Proteins Ltd. Vs. Food Corporation of India , reported in Vol.52 Sales Tax Cases 403 and that of a learned single Judge of Gauhati High Court in the case of OMILJSCJV Vs. Union of India and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charged was inclusive of sales tax. It is the legality of that ground together with the status of the FCI which enabled the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to entertain the writ petition and issue the mandamus. There does not appear to be any objection and ground of unreasonable and unexplained delay. 8. Similarly, in the case before the single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, the obligation was not discharged by another State entity. The Gauhati High Court noted that though the transaction fell within the purview of Section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 will have to be complied with, the dealer's request for issue of C Form against materials despa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
