Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1959 (7) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mankara, formerly in the State of Madras and now in the State of Kerala. He was assessed to sales tax in respect of his dealings for the periods 1947-48 and 1948-49 and was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,354-12-0 in respect of the former year and Rs. 1,766-2-6 in respect of the latter year. As the tax was not paid, he was prosecuted under section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, before the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Palghat. C.C. No. 145 of 1951 was the case in respect of the assessment for the year 1948-49 and C.C. No. 146 of 1951 in respect of the assessment for the year 1947-48. Both the cases ended in conviction and the petitioner was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 100 in each case as fine, in addition ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Note issued by the State of Madras on 9th January, 1954, the amounts could not be collected from him. He therefore prayed for writs of prohibition or other appropriate writ, direction or order in respect of the proceedings for realisation of the sales tax in each case. The respondent, the Collector of Palghat, has filed a counter affidavit stating that the assessments were in respect of the periods prior to the Constitution of India and that the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Press Note referred to by the petitioner have no application to these cases. It was also contended that the orders for realisation of the tax having become final, no writ should be issued. There is no merit in these petitions. The tax was levied in respect ....