Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (9) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... raise a common question of law and fact filed by the same petitioner, so they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Though appeals arising out of the common order passed in S.B.C.W. Petition No. 2602, 2604 and 2606 of 1986 are not before us. 3.The facts which are necessary for the disposal of these special appeals as alleged in D.B. Special Appeal No. 298/92 are that the petitioner-appellant is a private limited Company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the business as exporters, importers and manufacturers having its registered office at Jodhpur. The petitioner-appellant Company manufactures synthetic yarn, imports as raw material, `Polyester Staple Fibre'. It is alleged that the appellant Company imports Polyest .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing since then at the admission stage and no stay has been granted. 4.Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has contended that the learned Chief Justice has erred in dismissing the petitions on the ground of alternative remedy since it is not a Bar before the High Court to decide writ petition. He has also contended that the learned Chief Justice (as he then was) has erred in observing that without first getting the final order from the Appellate Authority on the facts as to what type of staple fibre was and whether it was covered by Entry 3, it was not possible to give the benefit since there is no dispute regarding the type of the staple fibre in the case at all. Counsel for the petitioner-appellant has also stated t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e then was) that there were no dispute on the basic facts but the same was opposed by the non-petitioner stating that whether the exemption given to the petitioner by Anx. 1 falls under the omnibus class "3" was one which was required to be departmentally decided by the authorities entitled to look into the facts and to decide the same. Thus, the learned Chief Justice (as he then was) has observed that the nature and character of the commodity concerned could be better examined and finding be recorded for applying Anx.1, the exemption notification. The learned Chief Justice (as he then was) has also observed that the facts do not fall within the scope of writ jurisdiction to determine the question about entitlement of Anx. 1 to get the bene .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ef Justice (as he then was) in the exercise of its discretion has rightly declined to interfere. The discretion so exercised in the given case is neither arbitrary nor illegal. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Chief Justice (as he then was). 10.We have been informed that the petitioner-appellant has deposited the amount demanded alongwith interest after the decision dated 8-4-1992, so the question now remains is of refund of the amount so deposited, which can only be made after it is held by the appropriate authority that the petitioner- appellant is entitled for the benefit of exemption in view of Anx. 1 and the demand raised was illegal, and while sitting in appeal it would not be proper for us to decide the same, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Apex Court. Thus, it also involves point of territorial jurisdiction. Keeping in view these facts, a Division Bench of this Court formulated two points vide order dated 6-8-1992 and directed the appellant to show (i) whether the appeal has been filed by him as directed in the impugned order? (ii) As to how the writ petition could be filed in this Court when the cause of action arose at Bombay? But the Counsel for the appellant has not addressed the Court on these two points. However, since the special appeals have been dismissed, as observed above, we need not go into the aforesaid points. 12.Before parting with the case, it will not be out of place to mention here that no assistance whatsoever has been provided by the other side in this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates