SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(Kar) 38

A.NARAYANA PAL, B.VENKATASWAMI
COTMAC PRIVATE LTD. – Appellant
Versus
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, HUBLI – Respondent


NARAYANA PAI, J.

( 1 ) THE facts which are not disputed and which are sufficient for the disposal of the only prayer in this writ petition are the following :-

( 2 ) THE petitioner is an assessee to sales tax both under the Mysore Sales Tax Act and under the central Sales Tax Act. For the year ended 31st March, 1962, the Commercial Tax Officer, 1st circle, Hubli, the 1st respondent herein, made an order of assessment under the Central Sales tax Act on 31st March, 1966, and also an order of the same date under the Mysore Sales Tax act. In the former he held that a sum of Rs. 20,936. 02 was refundable to the petitioner. Nevertheless he did not direct the payment or refund thereof to the petitioner; instead he made a direction in the second order that the said sum will be adjusted towards certain amounts held to be due by the petitioner for and on account of the sales tax payable under the Mysore Sales Tax act.

( 3 ) THE petitioner complains that the adjustment so proposed by the 1st respondent is not in accordance with law and that he having declined to give effect to his own order of refund, this court should issue a mandamus directing him to make the refund.

( 4 ) THE only answe




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top