1990 (3) TMI 91

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant. The High Court by its judgment dated 11-1-1990 in Civil Rule No. 442 of 1988 has held that the said Act came into force in that State from 16-8-1944. 3.The High Court, after declaring so, however, proceeded to make certain other observations as to the manner in which the appellant should go about its business in assessing, levying and collecting excise duty from the respondent under the `Act'. Those observations are at paragraphs 8, 10 and a portion of paragraph 11 which read : We do not propose to express any opinion on the certificate"8. given by the Commissioner of Excise and Taxes, Mizoram, Aizawl in view of the orders which we propose to pass in the present petition. We leave it to the learned Trial Court to decide t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e civil suit and that, accordingly, those orders constituted and impediment in the way of the authorities effectuating the provisions of the Act against the respondent. It was submitted that whatever directions the Trial Court had chosen to issue at the interlocutory stage had come to be set aside by this Court by its order dated 29-4-1988 in S.L.P. No. 5579/88 and that the High Court, in making the observations in paragraphs 10 and 11 virtually permitted itself to sit in judgment over the effect the order dated 29-4-1988 of this Court had on the interlocutory orders of the Trial Court in the suit and implied the possibility that the interdiction still operated against the appellant. Learned Attorney-General says that there was no occasion ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the suit or not, the orders made in the suit could not simply be ignored in the manner in which appellant sought to do. 6.On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the question whether the interlocutory order in the suit was overborne by this Court's order dated 29-4-1988 or not was not a matter of concern in the writ petition in the High Court and that, that question would require to be considered in the forum before it was sought to be raised. It is quite possible that the order dated 29-4-1988 had the effect of neutralising the order in the suit. It was not necessary for the High Court to have gone into that question as it is not for us to do that here either. The observations of the High Court in paragraphs 10 and....