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

1994 Supreme(P&H) 669

A.P.CHOWDHRI, J.L.GUPTA
Bharat Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


Judgment

A.P.Chowdhri, J.

1. The vires of sections 37 and 38 of the Haryana General Sales-Tax Act, 1973, as amended by the Haryana General Sales-Tax (second Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983 (Haryana Act No. 3 of 1983) is the common question which arises in these writ petitions. The facts giving rise to this question in CWP Nos. 2670, 2674 and 3810 of 1983 are substantially identical. The facts in CWP No. 4775 of 1986 are slightly different and will be adverted to at the appropriate stage.

2. It will be convenient to briefly mention the facts in CWP No. 2670 of 1983.

3. The petitioner is a contractor appointed to carry on Railway Booking Agency at Rewari in the State of Haryana. As such contractor he books goods and issues tickets on behalf of the Indian Railway. He also arranges delivery of the goods received from other stations. By the Haryana General Sales-Tax (Second Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983 sections 37 and 38 of the principal Act have been amended. Under the Principal Act, a contractor of Railway Booking Agency was not required to obtain any licence under the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, nor was he required to submit any return of the tran






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