Ranganadham Chetty, V. Ramaswamy and A. V. Rangam, for the respondent in both the appeals and intervener No.
V. Visivanatha Sastri, B. R. L. Iyengar, B. D. Dhawan, K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the appellants in both the appeals .
The revision was however dismissed on the ground that there was numbernecessity for interfering with the provisional assess ment at that stage.
500 and 671 of 1957.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated January 17, 1958 of the Madras High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.
The hirers however began to claim refund of this amount on the ground that hire purchase agreements were number within the ambit of sale as defined in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, No.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General, and B. R. G. K. Achar, for intervemer No.
Later lie filed another writ petition on August 18, 1957 challenging the final assessment for the year 1955 56.
Consequently the appellant filed a writ petition on June 29, 1957 challenging the provisional assessment with respect to the year 1956 57.
V. Subramaniam, Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh and B. G. K. Achar, for intervener No.
Naunit Lal, for intervener No.
245, 246 of 1963.
In the meantime provisional assessment had been made for the year 1956 57 and the appellant was being pressed to pay that amount also.
CIVIL, APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. These two appeals on certificates granted by the Madras High Court raise companymon questions and will be dealt with together.
N. Sachthey, for interveners No.
Adhikari, Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh and I. N. Shroff, for intervener No.
P. Gopalan Nambiar, Advocate General, Kerala, V. A. Syied Muhammad, for intervener No.
The appellant had also companylected though it number claims that it was done erroneously from the hirers of motor vehicles amounts equivalent to sales tax on their transactions and those amounts were kept in suspense account.
Later, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer passed the final order of assessment relating to the year 1955 56 holding that the hire purchase transactions were subject to sales, tax and overruled the objection that the transactions were only a system of financing and number sales.
P. Rana, for intervener No.
The appellant preferred an appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer against the order of assessment for the year 1955 56.
The companyrse of business followed by the appellant is to enter into hire purchase agreements with those who want to purchase motor vehicles.
That appeal is said to have been heard but numberorders had been passed thereon, when the writ petition was filed in the High Court on June 29, 1957.
B. Agarwala and 0.
It is necessary to refer to the terms of hire purchase agreements which are on a set pattern in order to understand the points raised in these appeals.
