9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e technical processes are involved, it is proper that the writ court should direct writ petitioners to agitate their grievances before statutory authorities who are more competent to assess the merits thereof. Thus the decision of the Division Bench was given upon inadequate material. Appeals are allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside. The respondents shall be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, to claim exemption for the said strapping for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72. If the appropriate proceedings are adopted by 1-1-1996, the same shall be decided without taking the aspect of limitation into account. - 1899-1900(NT) of 1976 - - - Dated:- 14-11-1995 - S.P. Bh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessing authority of exemption under Entry 7 of Schedule III of the said Act was erroneous. The appellants filed an affidavit to counter the averments in the writ petitions. They submitted that the writ petitions were not maintainable in that the writ petitioner had not chosen to agitate the issue before the appropriate sales tax authorities in appeal and revision. The counter also submitted that the said strapping was a different and distinct commercial commodity and it was so understood in the commercial world and by persons using the same.The writ petitions were rejected by the learned Single Judge who found that the requirements of Entry 7 of Schedule III to the Act were not satisfied.The Division bench allowed the appeals file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not describe the process of manufacture of fabrication of the said strapping, the inputs therein and the percentage of the bonding agent used. The principal question is whether the said strapping is a fabric made from rayon yarn and no material was placed before the Court in the writ petition to show that it was. In view thereof, we think that the writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the respondents ought to have been directed to agitate their grievances before the authorities under the Act. There authorities would have been in a better position to seek and appreciate the necessary evidence and determine whether or not the said strapping was something that feel within the scope of Entry 7 of Schedule III to the Act. 7.Wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
