TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (2) TMI 551
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f this Court may not be invoked. In this connection, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 53 STC 315. In that case, the Supreme Court, after considering the various provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957, more particularly, rules 12(5) and 15, and the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, more particularly, sections 12(4), 13(5), second proviso, clause (a), 23(1) and 23(3)(a), dismissed the petition on the ground that the assessee had an equally efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal to the prescribed authority under section 23(1) of the OST Act, then a second appeal to the Tribunal under section 23(3)(a), and thereafter, in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... article 226 of the Constitution. The apex Court also held that where a right or liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the statute must be availed of. Mr. Lal also referred to a recent decision of the apex Court in State of Goa v. Leukoplast (India) Ltd. [1997] 105 STC 318. In that case, the question was whether a product manufactured by the assessee could be treated as "drugs and medicines". It had to be found out how those products were understood and treated in the market. Therefore, the apex Court held that this question cannot be answered straightaway, being basically a question of fact, which should have been agitated before the appellate Tribunal and there is no re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the circumstances that the court should take into consideration in exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. The ratio laid down in this decision is not applicable to the case in hand, as, for preferring an appeal or a revision of stay, it is not necessary that some amount has to be deposited. In fact, we propose to pass an order in this regard. Reference has also been made to the decision of the apex Court in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1967] 19 STC 520; AIR 1967 SC 1401. We have perused the relevant paragraphs, namely, paragraphs 8 and 9 (pages 524 and 525 of STC) of the judgment, and we are of the opinion that the ratio laid down....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commercial Tax Officer, Madras [1970] 25 STC 528. From the facts of the case we find that the court held that the sales made by the Coffee Board were not sales in the course of export as those sales did not occasion the export of goods. The first sale was when the Coffee Board sold it to the export promoter. Then there was another sale by the export promoter to the foreign buyer. Of the latter sale, the Coffee Board did not have any inkling when the first sale took place. Coffee Board's sale was not in anyway related to the second sale. It was, therefore, held that the first sale had no connection with the second sale which was in the course of export, i.e., movement of goods between an exporter and an importer. 5.. There is no dispute ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... should be protected. But, in case of export, the taxing authorities should not treat such transactions as inter-State sales. Our country has opened up an economy and unless our export is increased, our fiscal policy shall be affected. The taxing authorities should acquaint themselves with the export and import policy of the country and should not treat such transactions as if they are inter-State sales. They must know the meaning of the notified agent, in view of the policy of the Government. If they fail to do so, not only the economy of the country will suffer, but also value of rupee will go down. We say so as the petitioner is an export oriented public sector company and is earning foreign exchange, which is reflected in the statement ....