2000 (7) TMI 955

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....15, 1999 issued by respondent No. 3Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-I, Ratlam, under section 33(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994. 2.. The petitioners have sought to impugne the demand as according to them it is contrary to the mandate of article 285(1) of the Constitution which prohibits imposition of any tax by the State Government against the Union of India. The responden....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of India and the State Government have been made parties mainly because the demand is raised against the railways owned by the Union of India and the demand is raised by an authority constituted by the State Government. In all most similar situation, the apex Court in Union of India v. State of Mysore AIR 1977 SC 127 held that jurisdiction of High Court to issue writ in such matters was not excl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntal Catering, Railway Station, Pathankot. The goods were purchased by the railways and were sold by the railways. The tax was imposed on the sale of goods. At the time of the sale, the goods belonged to the Railways. In view of the provisions of article 285(1) of the Constitution, such sales were immune from taxation under the State law. That was also the view of the High Court. The appeal,....