Skip to content


Tarsem Lal Sham Lal and ors. Vs. the State of Punjab and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Petition No. 6780 of 1976
Judge
Reported in[1978]42STC428(P& H)
AppellantTarsem Lal Sham Lal and ors.
RespondentThe State of Punjab and anr.
Appellant Advocate Bhal Singh Malik, Adv.
Respondent Advocate I.S. Tiwana, Additional Adv.-General
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredTek Chand Daulat Rai v. Excise and Taxation Officer
Excerpt:
.....further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments..........9(3) of the central sales tax act, 1956.2. it is unnecessary to advert to the facts, because the learned counsel for the petitioners have very fairly conceded that the matter now stands concluded against them by the judgments of their lordships of the supreme court as also by the full bench of this court. it is not disputed that the vires of section 8(2)(b) and of section 9 of the central sales tax act were upheld by their lordships of the supreme court in state of tamil nadu v. sitalakshmi mills ltd. [1974] 33 s.t.c. 200 (s.c.). an earlier judgment reported as state of madras v. n. k. nata-raja mudaliar [1968] 22 s.t.c. 376 (s.c.) had similarly repelled the challenge of unconstitutionality against section 8 (2), (2a) and sub-section (5) of the said section. again a full bench of this.....
Judgment:

S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

1. In this set of four petitions (C. W. P. Nos. 6780 of 1976, 4380 of 1976, 575 of 1977 and 8345 of 1976), the only point that falls for determination is the challenge to the vires of Section 8 (1), (2), (2A) and Section 9(2) and 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

2. It is unnecessary to advert to the facts, because the learned counsel for the petitioners have very fairly conceded that the matter now stands concluded against them by the judgments of their Lordships of the Supreme Court as also by the Full Bench of this Court. It is not disputed that the vires of Section 8(2)(b) and of Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act were upheld by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd. [1974] 33 S.T.C. 200 (S.C.). An earlier judgment reported as State of Madras v. N. K. Nata-raja Mudaliar [1968] 22 S.T.C. 376 (S.C.) had similarly repelled the challenge of unconstitutionality against Section 8 (2), (2A) and Sub-section (5) of the said section. Again a Full Bench of this Court in Tek Chand Daulat Rai v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Ferozepore [1972] 29 S.T.C. 585 at 603 (F.B.), has upheld the constitutionality of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act as a whole.

3. In view of the aforesaid binding precedents, there is no merit in these petitions which are hereby dismissed. In view of the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //