9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (7) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8-69 enforcing any of the provisions in item 7 of the Second Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. At the same time, the petitioner also filed C.M.Ps. Nos. 7154 of 1968 and 7155 of 1968 in the said writ petitions praying for stay of all further assessment proceedings for the respective years pending disposal of the said writ petitions. The writ petitions and the civil miscellaneous petitions came up for admission and on 7th May, 1968, this Court directed the issue of rule nisi in the writ petitions and passed an interim order of stay in the civil miscellaneous petitions in the following terms: "That all further assessment proceedings for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69 in respect of the petitioners in W. Ps. Nos. 1857 and 1858 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by this Court on 7th May, 1968, without imposing any conditions and contending that in the face of the order of this Court, the notice issued by the respondents was neither competent nor proper. On 20th May, 1968, the respondents sent a reply inviting the petitioner's attention to section 21(5) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and contending that the registering authority was competent to demand security for proper payment of Government dues and calling upon the petitioner to pay the security on or before 1st June, 1968. At the same time, they stated that that has nothing to do or interfere with the writ petitions filed by the petitioner. It is at this stage the petitioner filed the present civil miscellaneous petitions for taki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of item 7 of the Second Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1959 and on that basis they were required not to take any further assessment proceedings for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69 in respect of the petitioner, pending further orders on the petitions. As I extracted already, the notice dated 9th May, 1968, categorically informed the petitioner that according to the provisions in force the petitioner was liable to tax on the transactions effected by him as a registered dealer. It is conceded before me that the "provisions in force" referred to in the said notice are the identical provisions whose validity has been challenged in the writ petitions before this Court and with respect to which alone stay order has been issued, C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f any Court and, if he honestly and bona fide, in the discharge of his functions, feels that the order is erroneous or requires any modification, the only remedy open to him is to approach that Court by way of review or modification or a higher Court by way of appeal or otherwise. Apart from that, it is not open to him to take upon himself the responsibility of judging the order and take any action contrary to or inconsistent with the same on the basis of his own judgment. If once an officer is permitted or allowed to do any such thing, that will mean the end of the very principle of rule of law on the basis of which the entire fabric of our democratic society has been constructed.
Ordered accordingly. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
