TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (3) TMI 250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s before us from taking any steps and/or proceeding for the purpose of levy, imposition and collection of purchase tax and from withholding the issue of declaration forms and giving any effect to or taking any steps whatsoever in pursuance of the orders of assessment and notices of demand for the periods from 28th November, 1980 to 31st March, 1981, and from 1st April, 1981 to 31st March, 1982, and from further proceeding for assessment upto the period four quarters ending 31st March, 1984, till the disposal of the application, on condition that furnishing security by way of bank guarantee for Rs. 50,000 be furnished within four quarters from 18th December, 1984. It was pointed out by Mr. Dutta, who appeared in support of this applicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme Court has deprecated the practice of making interim orders or granting such orders for any commercial benefit to the writ petitioners on furnishing bank guarantee. There is no doubt or any dispute that we are bound under article 141 of the Constitution of India, by such determination as made by the Honourable Supreme Court of India. Dr. Pal, who appeared for the writ petitioners and opposing the application, has pointed out that since some cogent and wholesome points of law are involved in this proceeding, apart from the question of vires of the clause in the concerned contract and so also the legislative competence of the State Legislature in the matter and that being the point, the learned judge, who issued the rule and interim ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een indicated hereinbefore. Thus, Dr. Pal wanted to establish that even the Supreme Court has accepted the position that bank guarantee in appropriate cases can be directed. It should be noted that by making the order as aforesaid, the Honourable Supreme Court had disposed of the appeal. Thereafter, Dr. Pal referred to another order dated 13th April, 1982, passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in its Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3794 of 1982 (M.R.F. Ltd. v. Union of India) and pointed out, that while granting special leave, their Lordships of the Supreme Court had directed an interim order to be issued in terms of prayer (b), which was to the following effect: "Grant ad interim ex parte stay of the operation of the ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the Supreme Court sits in a Division Bench of two or three Honourable Judges for the sake of convenience and it may be inappropriate for a Division Bench of three, to purport to overrule the decision of a Division Bench of two Judges. It may be otherwise, where a Full Bench or a Constitution Bench does so. In fact on a reference to the above observations, Dr. Pal claimed that the Honourable Supreme Court could not thus have overruled the observations made in the two orders as indicated hereinbefore by their determination in the Dunlop's case (1985) 1 SCC 260 and according to him, unfortunately the learned judges in the Dunlop's case [1985] 1 SCC 260 have not at all considered the earlier determinations of the Supreme Court. We are....