https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98092 The court dismissed the writ petitions as incompetent under Article 32, upholding the respondents' second preliminary objection. The court did not address the merits of the sales tax demands or whether the transactions were inter-State sales protected under Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution. It also rejected the argument that corporations could claim fundamental rights under Article 19 through their shareholders by lifting the corporate veil, emphasizing that corporations cannot indirectly enjoy rights intended for citizens. en-us Tue, 25 Feb 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 24 Aug 2014 16:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98092 The court dismissed the writ petitions as incompetent under Article 32, upholding the respondents' second preliminary objection. The court did not address the merits of the sales tax demands or whether the transactions were inter-State sales protected under Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution. It also rejected the argument that corporations could claim fundamental rights under Article 19 through their shareholders by lifting the corporate veil, emphasizing that corporations cannot indirectly enjoy rights intended for citizens. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 25 Feb 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98092