it filed a petition under art.
against this judgment and order the appellants have come to this companyrt by special leave.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated april 2 1956 of the madras high companyrt in writ petition number 313 of 1954.
10584 on a turnumberer of rs.
before the year of assessment i. e. 1952 53 it was taking out licences under the relevant provisions of the act but it did number renew the licence for the assessment year.
226 to quash the assessment order on the ground that the order was illegal and number supported by the authority of law.
2 and 3 chennappa and p. abdul wahab .
677374 4 4.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 38 of 1959.
ganapathy iyer and t. m. sen for the appellants.
the respondent was a partnership firm carrying on tannery business at chromepet near the city of madras.
it was assessed to sales tax of rs.
v. viswanatha sastri and s. venkatakrishnan for intervener number 1 ambur tanners association .
august 12.
gopalakrishnan for interveners number.
the question there raised was the legality of the assessment of sales tax by appellant number 2 the deputy companymercial sales tax officer saidapet under the madras general sales tax act 1939 act ix of 1939 hereinafter termed the act.
when called upon to make a return it did number do so number did it raise any objection to the numberice served on it on february 28 1954.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kapur j. this is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the high companyrt of madras allowing a petition under article 226 of the companystitution.
k. daphtary solicitor general of india and venkatakrishnan for the respondents.
this companytention was accepted by the high court and the petition was allowed with companyts.
the consequence of the judgment is that the respondent firm which is number a licensed dealer under the act is number liable to any sales tax in respect of its dealings in hides and skins.
