Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in the High Court in view of the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution of India in a dispute between the Government of India and a State involving the existence or extent of a legal right.
Analysis: The dispute was between a department of the Government of India and the State of Haryana. The controversy concerned the State's asserted right to require registration of the petitioner as a dealer under section 7 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and to levy and recover sales tax. Such a dispute involved questions of fact and law on which the existence and extent of the asserted legal right depended. Article 131 therefore operated as a bar to the jurisdiction of courts other than the Supreme Court, subject only to the limited constitutional exceptions not attracted here.
Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable in the High Court and were liable to be dismissed; the petitioner was left to seek remedy before the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a dispute is between the Government of India and a State and its determination turns on questions of law or fact affecting the existence or extent of a legal right, Article 131 confers exclusive original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court and bars the jurisdiction of the High Court.