BYFORD LEASING LIMITED Vs. EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated May 29, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. Vide impugned order, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner and affirmed the order dated November 27, 1995 passed by the learned Senior sub-Judge, Gurgaon.

(2.) Mr. Sibal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, while relying upon the case of Ashok Leyland Limited v. Union of India [1997] 105 STC 152 (SC) ; (1997) 9 SCC 10, contended 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, resulting 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 subject-matter of payment of sales tax in Delhi. This has resulted in double taxation and is violative of Article 286 of the Constitution of India.