TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1959 (7) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollector of Palghat, from enforcing or executing the orders in Calendar Cases Nos. 145 and 146 of 1951 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Palghat, and collecting the sales tax involved in the two cases. The petitioner was a dealer in untanned hides and skins and was carrying on business at Mankara, formerly in the State of Madras and now in the State of Kerala. He was assessed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on petitions in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam, for realisation of the tax as per the above decisions. The petitioner contended before that Court that by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Bombay v. The United Motors (India) Limited [1953] 4 S.T.C. 133., the sales tax was not leviable, as the sales were in the nature of inter-State transactions. His case was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same, these petitions have been filed. The petitioner's case is that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court relating to inter-State sales and a Press 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n came into force. It was perhaps open to the petitioner to urge at the time of the assessments that the sales were effected outside the State of Madras and that the same were not therefore liable to sales tax in Madras. That stage is long past, and the orders of assessment have become final. It is not possible to exercise the powers under Article 226 to examine the correctness of the orders of as....