TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (10) TMI 712
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of Ashok Leyland Limited v. Union of India [1997] 105 STC 152 (SC); (1997) 9 SCC 10, con tended that the learned subordinate courts have fallen in error of jurisdiction in declining the injunction prayed for, to the plaintiff. The contention is that the provisions of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 have been misconstrued and the facts pleaded misappreciated, result ing in the passing of the impugned orders. 3.. The principal contention on behalf of the petitioner is that they have different offices and sale distribution centres of the cars in all over India and the car sold by them in places other than Delhi could not form subjectmatter of payment of sales tax in Delhi. This has resulted in double taxation and is violative of article 28....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rit Petition No. 1947 of 1994, wherein the plaintiff was directed to pay Rs. 16 lacs, vide order dated 26th May, 1994, as condition precedent for hearing of the appeal. Ultimately, the writ petition stood dismissed in the same terms. 5.. It is contended by the counsel for the petitionerplaintiff that the plaintiff was not in a position to comply with the condition precedent imposed by the various authorities under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 for hearing the appeal and thus instituted the present suit challenging the very validity and enforcement of the assessment order passed by the sales tax authority creating a demand of Rs. 2,93,56,367. 6.. It is a settled principle of law that relief of injunction is a discretionary relief in eq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in any case, to the extent of interim order. The honourable Supreme Court of India in somewhat similar circumstances in the case of Kamala Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay [1965] 16 STC 613 (SC); AIR 1965 SC 1942, while interpreting section 20 of the Sales Tax Act held as under: "Even an erroneous conclusion of the appropriate authority on the question about the character of the sale transactions on which a dealer has been taxed cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. If while exercising its jurisdiction and powers under the relevant provisions of the Act, the appropriate authority holds erroneously that a transaction, which is an outside sale (within the meaning of article 286 of the Constitution as it was in 1956), is not an outside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his stage, to finally deter mine this question either way. 9.. The claim for interim injunction of the plaintiffcompany even lacks bona fide. Having exhausted its statutory remedies under the Act and even having approached the Delhi High Court, now the plaintiff turns back to challenge the same orders ignoring all these proceedings in the court of learned Senior SubJudge, Gurgaon. The intention of the plaintiff lacks bona fide and the methodology adopted is apparent infringement upon the process of law. 10. In the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1997] 105 STC 152; (1997) 9 SCC 10, the honourable Supreme Court clearly held that such interState trade, does not preclude assessing authority from reopening assessment order under the Cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the sales had actually been conducted from Delhi only but wrongly shown to have been made from branches outside Delhi. From the above discussions, it is clear that sales to Delhi customers from Daman, Chandigarh, Gurgaon, Jaipur, Jammu, Noida and Gwalior branches are nothing else but sales of Delhi and have been made from Daman, Chandigarh, Gurgaon, Jammu, Jaipur, Noida and Gwalior and also it is a fact that the sales tax of these States is lesser than the sales tax of Delhi." 12.. Keeping in view the orders of various authorities, the facts narrated above and the conduct of the plaintiff, I have no hesitation in affirming the concurrent view taken by the learned courts below that the plaintiff has no prima facie case nor balance ....