TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... January 8, 1990, June 27, 1990 and March 7, 1994. - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 674 of 1997, 604, 605 of 1997, 134, 312-315, 428, 429, 552 of 1998, 101, 309 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 19-1-2000 - BHARUCHA S.P. AND SANTOSH HEGDE N. JJ. Additional Solicitor-General: C.S. Vaidyanathan, for the parties. Other Advocates: Sushil Kr. Jain, Aruneshwar Gupta, P.N. Puri, S.K. Dholakia, Prakash Shrinivastava, Sunil Gupta, P.N. Puri, S.K. Dholakia, Prakash Shrivastava, Sunil Gupta, R.P. Sanghi, Puneet Tyagi, Narendra Sharma, R.P. Singh, M.L. Patodi, Yashank Adhyaru, U.A. Rana , A.K. Srinivastava, Pradeep Aggarwal, A. Mishra, Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Ms. Pratibha Jain, A. Pednekar, A.P. Dhamija, Umesh Bohare, L.P. Singh Ms. H. Wahi, S. Tripathi and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion before a Bench of three Judges, the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Shri Digvijay Cement [1997] 106 STC 11; (1997) 5 SCC 406 was cited and the Bench observed that it was required to be considered by a larger Bench. Accordingly, the writ petition was heard and disposed of by a Constitution Bench [Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [2000] 117 STC 395; JT 1999 (10) SC 201]. The Constitution Bench held that the decision in Shri Digvijay Cement Co. v. State of Rajasthan [1997] 106 STC 11 (SC); (1997) 5 SCC 406 did not lay down the correct law and it was, therefore, overruled. It may be mentioned that the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Indian Cement Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1988] 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision in British Physical Lab India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2000] 119 STC 6 (SC); (1999) 1 SCC 170. It is learned counsel's submission that the respondent-State cannot, in law and in equity and good conscience, recover the differential rate of sales tax that is demanded by the three show cause notices. Stress is laid on the fact that the respondent- State had always contended that the three notifications were valid and had been issued in the public interest and that stand of the respondent-State stood vindicated by the Constitution Bench judgment which had overruled the decision in Shri Digvijay Cement Co. v. State of Rajasthan [1997] 106 STC 11 (SC) based upon which the show cause notices had been issued. 5.. Learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that the State is implementing the judgment in the case of Shri Digvijay Cement Co. [1997] 106 STC 11 (SC) cannot be accepted. In the order therein all that was stated was that the notifications were void and were, therefore, quashed. There was no direction to the respondent-State to recover the difference in tax. 8.. We think, in the circumstances, following the orders aforementioned and in the interest of justice and equity, that the respondent-State should be directed not to collect the amount of sales tax that became payable only by reason of the order in the case of Shri Digvijay Cement [1997] 106 STC 11 (SC) quashing the notifications dated January 8, 1990, June 27, 1990 and March 7, 1994. 9.. The writ petition is allowed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
