9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (10) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s directed against the orders dated 15th April, 1982, and 27th February, 1979, respectively passed by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3. 2.. The facts giving rise to this petition briefly stated are as follows: The petitioner was a partner in the firm, M/s. Sunderlal Baijanth, which carried on business of selling foreign type Indian Liquor at Sanawad. According to the petitioner the licence i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for quashing the order annexure A passed by respondent No. 3 in exercise of the revisional powers of respondent No. 1. This application was dismissed by respondent No. 1 on 8th April, 1982, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in the matter. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the order annexure F passed by respondent No. 1 be quashed because it is vitiated having b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The respondents prayed that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and that the petition should be dismissed. 4.. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we have come to the conclusion that this petition is without any substance and must be dismissed. 5.. According to the petitioner himself, Ishwarlal was a working partner and looking after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the order passed by respondent No. 3 which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. This was a material fact which ought to have been disclosed by the petitioner in the petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. 6.. As a result of the discussion aforesaid, this petition fails and is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs of this petition. The outstandi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
