9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. 2. Mrs. Lata Desai, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would submit that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the above relief, is maintainable even against the respondent No.5, which is a Public Limited Company, incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, as that company has failed to perform a statutory obligation and duty. The respondent No.5 are purchasers. On 30.4. 2008, they placed an order with the petitioners for certain goods. According to the petitioners, on receipt of this purchase order dated 30-4-2008 and relying upon its Clauses, supply of goods commenced on 11-11-2008 and was completed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter more than seven years of the date of issuance of the purchase order and nearly five years from the date the supply was completed. The writ petitioners entered into a commercial transaction with the respondent No.5. If the commercial terms were adhered to and that resulted in a tax liability, the petitioners could have very well recovered the differential amount by bringing a civil suit. To get over that defect and lacuna by some correspondence and oral request, the writ petition is filed, and that too belatedly. 7. Assuming that such a writ petition was entertained by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Gauhati High Court, that was in the peculiar facts. In the case before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the entity was Food Corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d it is in these circumstances, that when the authority who was proposing to levy penalty for nonpayment of tax that the request was granted. It was found that there was no dispute on facts either. 9. Assuming in the present case a writ petition could be entertained, still we do not find that on the one sided version of the petitioners we can direct the respondent No.5 to issue any such "C" Form and in relation to a transaction concluded as far back as in 2010. We have found from the entire petition and its annexures that the petitioners having met the tax liability and also obtained the benefit 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
