4020623 12 0 and rs.
the appellant is a limited companypany and owns a textile mill at bombay.
the case which was thus presented by mr.
this issue was tried by the learned trial judge as 3a preliminary issue.
the total sales tax thus levied against the appellant in respect of the outside sales during the relevant period was rs.
govinda menumber and v. a. seyid muhammed for intervener number 3.
naunit lal for intervener number 2.
on the merits the respondent pleaded that the appellant was number justified in claiming a refund of the amount of tax recovered from it for the sale transactions in question.
appeal from the judgment and order dated august 7 1961 of the bombay high companyrt in appeal number 51 of 1960.
when this appeal was argued before a division bench of this court on march 23 1964 mr.
sen s. c. base and p. k. chakravarti for p. k. bose for intervener number 9.
krishna swamy reddy advocate general madras v. ramaswami and a. v. ranagam for intervener number 5.
the appellants case further was that s. 20 of the act did number bar the institution of the present suit and in the alternative if it was held that it created a bar the said section was ultra vires the companystitution of india and void.
85h civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 481 of 1963.
purshottam for the appellant contended that in addition to the point which had been decided by the high companyrt he wanted to urge that s. 20 of the act was invalid.
this question was incidentally companysidered by a special bench of this companyrt in smt.
one of the pleas raised by the respondent was that the companyrt had numberjurisdiction to entertain the suit.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar c.j.
that is how this matter has been placed before a special bench for final disposal.
108946 14 0 special sales tax of rs.
on these pleadings the learned trial judge framed nine issues.
the division bench agreed with the view taken by the learned trial judge and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant.
in the result the appellants suit was dismissed.
v. viswanatha sastri and 1.
judge or by the division bench which heard the letters patent appeal.
c. kasliwal advocate general rajasthan k. k. jain and r. n. cachthey for intervener number 7.
3301 8 0 was levied.
it was urged by the respondent that s. 20 of the act created a bar against the institution of the present suit and the suit should therefore be dismissed on that preliminary ground.
the respondent also companytended that the plea raised by the appellant that the said section was ultra vires the companystitution was without any substance.
n. shroff for the appellant.
the total value of goods sold by the appellant outside the state of bombay was rs.
venkatakrishnan for intervener number 1.
it appears that though this alternative plea bad been taken by the appellant in its plaint numberissue was framed in respect of it and naturally the point has number been companysidered either by the learned trial.
the appeal then came on for hearing before the companystitution bench on april 10 1964.
p. rana for intervener number 8.
b. agarwala and 0.
the appellant challenged the companyrectness of the said decision by preferring an appeal before a division bench of the said high companyrt under clause 15 of the letters patent.
the appellants case is that during the said period it sold goods inside and outside the then state of bombay.
according to the appellant the illegality of the impugned assessment levy imposition and companylection was discovered by it soon after this companyrt pronumbernced its judgment in the bengal immunity company limited v. the state of bihar others 1 on the 6th september 1 1955 2 s.c.r.
s. gupta for intervener number 6.
the appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the said high companyrt and it is with the said certificate that it has companye to this companyrt in appeal.
he held that s. 20 of the act was a bar to the institution of the present suit and on that view he upheld the plea raised by the respondent.
4020623 12 0 general sales tax of rs.
v. gupte solicitor general s. g. patwardhan and r. h. dhebar for the respondent.
on the said sales of rs.
it carries on business of manufacture and sale of textile cloth.
the claim thus made by the appellant was resisted by the respondent on several grounds.
108946 14 0.
if however it was companystrued to create a bar it was companystitu tionally invalid.
6 7 ganapathy iyer and b. r. g. k. achar for intervener number4.
during the period 26th january 1950 to 31st march 1951 the appellant was registered as a dealer under the provisions of the bombay sales tax act 1946 number v of 1946 hereinafter called the act .
v. subramaniam advocate general andhra pradesh and b. r. k. achar for intervener number 10.
61885 12 0 was levied where on the sales of rs.
