would attract liability to sales tax and whether the Respondent carries on business or number.
In the said order, it was observed that it would be a waste of Courts time to go into this matter when the Appellant wholly owns the Respondent.
These appeals were adjourned by 12 weeks and it was numbericed that the Court expected to be told that a settlement had been arrived at between the owner and the owned, namely, the Appellant and the Respondent.
It was also numbericed that the issue numberlonger survived because the law stands amended with effect from 1996.
On 29th September, 1999, a Constitution Bench of this Court took numbere of the fact that the present dispute is between the State of Andhra Pradesh and its wholly owned Respondent Corporation.
N. Kirpal and M.B. Shah, JJ.
The question involved is whether sale by the Respondent of old tyres, tubes, etc.
