GARLICK AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED MADRAS 2 Vs. JOINT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER MOUNT ROAD II DIVISION MADRAS 2

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 24th January, 1968, we disposed of Writ Petition No. 2513 of 1967. The learned Advocate-General, who appeared for the revenue in that case, gave an undertaking on behalf of the State that pending final disposal of the appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes concerned, there would be no steps taken for recovery of the tax due. That undertaking was recorded and it formed the sole basis for dismissal of the writ petition. Since then the Special Government Pleader (Commercial Taxes) has requested that the matter may be posted for being spoken to. That is how it comes before this Court over again.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate-General argues that, though he had given that undertaking, he would like this Court to make an order interpreting the scope of the order of the Supreme Court in C.M.P. No. 1587 of 1967 dated 18th July, 1967. In Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a party, held sub-sections (2), (2A) and (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to be void and unconstitutional on the ground that they violated Article 301 of the Constitution. The State has filed an appeal against that judgment and by C.M.P. No. 1587 of 1967, has obtained from the Supreme Court an interim order dated 5th May, 1967, which is as follows :-

(3.) THIS is what this Court stated in disposing of Writ Petition No. 3909 of 1967 The petition is to prohibit the Joint Commercial Tax Officer from proceeding further on the ground that his proposals to assess are not in conformity with the law as declared by this Court in Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer It is not to be expected that the department will be free either not to follow or by-pass any judgment of this Court so long as it holds the field and has not been reversed either by a fuller Bench of this Court or by the Supreme Court. On that view of the matter, we are not prepared to issue the rule at the moment in the expectation that the law, as declared by this Court, will be followed by the department. We would add that suspension by the Supreme Court of the operation of the judgment for purposes of the appeal pending before the Supreme Court does not, in our opinion, mean that the judgment stands reversed. Subject to this observation, the petition is dismissed.