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

1964 Supreme(Cal) 217

D.BASU
MAHENDRA PRATAP RAMACHANDRA – Appellant
Versus
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.T.GANGULY, K.C.MUKHERJI, N.C.CHAKRAVARTI, Somendra Chandra Basu

D. BASU, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the assessment order at Ann, C to the Petition (page 17) by which the Commercial Tax Officer--Respondent No. I--has directed the Petitioner to pay a sales tax amounting to Rs. 19,171,65 np. , with a penalty of Rs. 500/-, in respect of the period from 29-3-58 to 16-4-59.

( 2 ) THE petitioner firm's contention, in the main, is that the sales in question were exempted under items (26) and (28) of Rule 3 of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 framed under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The other grounds urged in support of the petition will be stated in course of the judgment.

( 3 ) I. The first head on which exemption is claimed relates to Rule 3 (26), which is as follows:"in calculating his taxable turnover a registered dealer may deduct from his gross turnover his turnover an the following, namely-- (26) Sales of handloom-woven cotton cloth. "

( 4 ) IT has been rightly contended by the learned Government pleader that on the present point, the petitioner is barred from obtaining any relief in this proceeding under Article 226, because his claim







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