TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (2) TMI 427
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dismissed the appeals on December 6, 1994 (annexures P/6 A to P/10 A). Appellate orders were served on February 1, 1995. The apex Court decided in [1994] 95 STC 5 (Entry Tax Officer v. Chandanmal Champalal & Co.) that goods brought or sold in the local area, if exported outside the area, are immune from levy of entry tax. Respondent No. 4, (Sales Tax Officer) equipped with powers of Tehsildar for the purposes of recovery of dues, issued demand notices (annexures P/22 to P/25) under section 146, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and later notices dated January 30, 1995 (annexures P/26 to P/29) under section 22(6) of M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 to deposit the dues in seven days. Petitioner questioned validity of these notices on the gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment after reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and for cancellation of notices and for release of the bank accounts. The Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the petition is without valid cause and remedy if any lies under the relevant Act. He also submits that benefit of period prescribed under the rule 37 is not available to the petitioner because the appellate authority neither made interference nor quantified any amount. According to him, it was simply a case of dismissal of the appeals. 9.. As regards the challenge to the orders of assessment, it is admitted before me that alternative remedy of revision is available. 10.. In AIR 1994 SC 754 (State of U.P. v. Labh Chand) it is held as under: "Wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the appropriate authorities. Counsel for the petitioners says that all the sales effected by all the petitioners are inter-State sales. May be, or may not be. We leave the matters to be disposed of by the authorities under the Act in the light of the law declared by this Court." 13.. It is also held in AIR 1992 SC 2279 (Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi) that recourse to writ jurisdiction is not proper when more satisfactory solution is available on the terms of the statute itself. 14.. In view of the aforesaid position, decisions relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are not helpful to the petitioner. 15.. In the result, I decline examination of the assessment orders and as such decline interference leaving t....