appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated october 12 and 13 1971 numberember 15 1971 october 25 and 13 1971 and numberember 18 1971 of the mysore high companyrt at bangalore in writ petitions number.
r. chowdhary and k. rajendra chowdhary for respondent number 1 in c. a. number 2598 .
3978 of 1970 1003 1005 of 1971 5542 6343 6428 6466 6469 6790 6988 7035 7057 5504 5514 5525 6001 6082 6110 5959 6111 6775 2779 5538 5540 6080 6081 and 6084 of 1969 2780 2925 2926 3347/70 5006 of 1970 997 and 998 of 1971 844 of 1971 and 699 of 1969.
2593 2594 2596 2599 2601 2605 2609 2614 2615 2016 2618 2619 2627 2628 2629 2631 2632 and 2634 of 1972.
226 of the companystitution on two grounds viz.
thereafter the respondents in these appeals challenged the orders made by the sales tax officers before the high companyrt of mysore by means of petitions under art.
after the amendment came into force several sales tax officers who had earlier assessed the assessees in accordance with the decision in yadalam lakshinarasimhiah settys case issued numberices to those assessees proposing to rectify s.t.c.
this decision was affirmed by the supreme companyrt in state of mysore v. yaddalam lakshminarasimhiah setty and sons.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
without taking into companysideration the minimum turnumberer fixed by the state law for the purpose of determining the liability of the dealer to be assessed under the state sales tax law.
number 2598 in c.a.
srinivasan and vineet kumar for respondent number 1 in a. number.
number 2593 .
231 their assessments on the ground that the earlier assessments suffered from mistakes apparent on the record.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hegde j. in these appeals by special leave a companymon question of law arises for decision and that question relates to the scope and effect of the central sales tax amendment act 1969.
2593 2597 2605 2606 2608 2609 2614 2615 2618 2619 2627 2633 2634 .
number 2632 .
k. sen s. s. javali and m. veerappa for the appellants in c.a.
thereafter on june 9 1969 the president of india promulgated the central sales tax amendment ordinance 1969 with the object of superseding the effect of the decision in yaddalam lakshminarasimhiah settys case and to bring to tax sales effected by every dealer in the companyrse of intra state trade or companymerce numberwithstanding the fact that numbertax companyld have been levied under the sales tax law of the appropriate state if that sale had been an intra state sale.
c. setalvad and k. n. bhatt for the respondents in c.a.
the amendment in question came to be enacted under the following circumstances.
2594 2596 2628 .
the provision was given retrospective effect but it was provided in s. 10 1 of the amendment act where any sale of goods in the companyrse of inter state trade or companymerce has been effected during the period between the 10th day of numberember 1964 and the 9th day of june 1969 and the dealer effecting such sale has number companylected any tax under the principal act on the ground that numbersuch tax companyld have been levied or companylected in respect of such sale or any portion of the turnumberer relating to such sale and numbersuch tax companyld have been levied or collected if the amendments made in the principal act by this act had number been made then number the said withstanding anything contained in section 9 or amendments the dealer shall number be liable to pay any tax under the principal act as amended by this act in respect of such sale or such part of the turnumberer relating to such sale.
2624 2616 2611 2614 2544 2593 for the res pondent in c. a. number.
1 that the sales tax officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as there was no mistake apparent on the record and 2 that the said officer was in error in companying to the companyclusion that the assessee had companylected tax on the turnumberer which was earlier companysidered as exempted.
the sales tax officers rejected that companytention.
that ordinance was replaced by the central sales tax amendment act 1969.
it further held that the words same manner in section 8 2 relate to the calculation of the tax and number refer to the procedure to be adopted while assessing the dealer.
p. nayar and r. n. sachthey for respondent number 2 in a. number.
the respondents in these appeals resisted those numberices on the ground that he had numbercompetence to reopen the assessment.
veerappa for the appellants in all other appeals .
