9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (2) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, 1962. But, thereafter, the petitioner did not file the usual returns and claimed exemption on such sales of eatables to its members both on the basis of non-liability to pay tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act and also on the ground that it was entitled to exemption. The Government did not exempt and finally what happened was that the joint Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade Division, by his notice dated 20th July, 1963, called upon the petitioner to file the returns in form A-2 for the months of April and May, 1963. The petitioner, through its secretary, submitted its returns for April, 1962, to September, 1962, but, thereafter, once again, defaulted in submitting the returns from October, 1962, to March, 1963. It appears however ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f goods belonging to it to its members may not result in sale of the goods which are jointly held for the benefit of the members by the society, club etc., when by virtue of the relinquishment of the common rights of the members the property stands transferred to a member in payment of a price and the transaction may not Prima facie be regarded as a sale. In Joint Commercial Tax Officer v. Young Men's Indian Association[1970] 26 S.T.C. 241 (S.C.)., the Supreme Court considering such situations in relation to the Cosmopolitan Club, Young Men's Indian Association and the Lawley Institute found that no transaction of sale was involved in the supply of refreshments and preparations by each one of them to its members and no tax could be levied u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to which of the ratio referred to by the Supreme Court in the decisions has to be applied. The petitioner has come up to this court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus on a proposal mooted by the department. The petitioner has not yet fully placed its material for the department to appreciate and apply the correct law on it. In these circumstances, I am unable to interfere by issuing a writ of mandamus which presupposes that the department has no jurisdiction to assess the petitioner and that there is indeed a public duty on the part of the respondent to avoid undertaking any such assessment proceedings against the petitioner. As the main limbs which are necessary for the issue of a writ of mandamus are absent and even otherwise as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
