TMI Blog1968 (2) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he sole basis for dismissal of the writ petition. Since then the Special Government Pleader (Commercial Taxes) has requested that the matter may be posted for being spoken to. That is how it comes before this Court over again. Learned Advocate-General argues that, though he had given that undertaking, he would like this Court to make an order interpreting the scope of the order of the Supreme Court in C.M.P. No. 1587 of 1967 dated 18th July, 1967. In Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer[1967] 20 S.T.C. 150., a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a party, held sub-sections (2), (2A) and (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to be void and unconstitutional on the ground that they violated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the appellant above-named by this Court's order dated the 5th day of May, 1967, be and is hereby made absolute and that, pending the hearing and final disposal by this Court of the appeal above-mentioned, the operation of the judgment and order dated the 7th April, 1967, of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 836 of 1966 be and is hereby stayed and THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER that this order be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned." In Writ Petition No. 3909 of 1967 this Court while declining to issue a rule nisi and dismissing the petition, took the view that the scope of the order of the Supreme Court dated 18th July, 1967, was confined to the parties to the said stay petition and did not extend fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, normally when a stay order is granted by a Court, its operation is but confined to the parties before the Court. In any case, the matter is made clear by the order of the Supreme Court dated 18th July, 1967. The Advocate-General having given an undertaking for the State that the tax due would not be collected from the respondent in the appeal before the Supreme Court pending final disposal thereof, the ad interim stay was, subject to the undertaking, made absolute. In our opinion, therefore, the stay granted by the Supreme Court which was based on the undertaking given by the Advocate-General, operates only as between the parties to the stay petition and the appeal. We are, therefore, unable to construe the stay order of the Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
