From the Judgment and Order dated 16 8 73 of the Gujarat High ,Court in S.C.A. Nos.
400, 377 and 1220/70 and 30, 129, 155, 184, 362, 363, 391, 406, 822, 823 and 1764/71 and 234 and 449/72.
1410 and 1671 1685/75 From the Judgment and Order dated 16 8 73 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA No.
S. Nariman, M. N. Shroff and Miss Radha Rangaswami for the Intervener State of Maharashtra in CA No.
T. Desai and R. M. Mehta, M. N. Shroff and Miss Radha Rangaswami for the Appellants in CAs.
533, 1004, and 1410 and 16711685/75.
Sen CA 533/75 I. N. Shroff for Respondent No.
533 and 1004 ,of 1975.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
1 in CA 533 and RR in C.As.
Kanishkar H. Kaji, Mrs. S. Bhandare, M. S. Narasimhan, A. K. Mathur, A. K. Sharma, and Miss Nalini Paduval for Respondent in CA 1671/75.
1677 78, 1680 and 1682 1683/75.
1410/75.
Contradictory verdicts on the companystitutionality of a certain pattern of sales tax legislation, calculated to companynter companysumer victimisation by dealers, have been rendered by different High Courts and what companyplicates the issue is that seasonings in the prior rulings of this Court on the topic have been pressed into service by both sides.
J. John for Respondents in CA 1685/75.
The honest dealer made a return of the total slims companylected by him on the turnover and it was discovered by the sales tax officer that certain items were number taxable and, therefore, refund was due.
421 and 508 of 1971 and CIVIL APPEALS NOS.
