Skip to content


M.J. Jamal Mohideen Saheb and Co. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Commercial Tax Officer, Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 264 of 1952
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Mad131
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 226 and 286; Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 - Sections 12A
AppellantM.J. Jamal Mohideen Saheb and Co.
RespondentThe State of Madras Represented by the Commercial Tax Officer, Madras
Appellant AdvocateC. Venugopalachari, ;T.T. Srinivasan and ;A.N. Rangaswamy, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateV.K. Thiruvenkatachari, Adv. General and ;V.V. Raghavan, Adv. for ;Govt. Pleader
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....and that further the assessee would be also liable to be proceeded against under section 15 of the madras general sales tax act. the petitioners have replied by taking out this writ challenging the validity of the madras general sales tax act and further disputing the correctness of the: assessment under article 286 of the constitution. 2. under the act an appeal is provided against the orders of the deputy commercial tax officer and the petitioners have in fact preferred such an appeal. it is open to them to raise all questions as to the extent of their liability under the act and under article 286 of the constitution before the appellate officer. we should therefore decline to entertain this petition. we may add that in writ petns. nos. 21, 41 and 227 of 1952 (mad), we have decided the.....
Judgment:

Venkatarama Aiyar, J.

1. The petitioners are a firm of merchants carrying on business as tanners in the City of Madras. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade Division, by his order dated 28th February. 1952, determined the taxable turnover of the petitioners for the period 1st April, 1950, to 31st March, 1951, at Rs. 14,97,726-12-11 and the tax payable thereon was assessed at Rs. 23,401-15-8. After deducting a sum of Rs. 2,303-5-6 paid as advance tax, the balance payable by the petitioners was Rs. 21,098-10-2. Notice was issued to the petitioners in Form No. B-l calling upon them to pay the tax and stating that in case it was not paid within the time limited, it would be recovered as though it was an arrear of land revenue and that further the assessee would be also liable to be proceeded against under Section 15 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The petitioners have replied by taking out this writ challenging the validity of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and further disputing the correctness of the: assessment under Article 286 of the Constitution.

2. Under the Act an appeal is provided against the orders of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and the petitioners have in fact preferred such an appeal. It is open to them to raise all questions as to the extent of their liability under the Act and under Article 286 of the Constitution before the Appellate Officer. We should therefore decline to entertain this petition. We may add that in writ petns. Nos. 21, 41 and 227 of 1952 (Mad), we have decided the points raised by the petitioners with reference to the validity of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and the scope and the operation of Article 286, Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed.

3. There will be no order as to costs.

Rajamannar, C.J.

4. I agree.


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