1982 (10) TMI 200

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... omers and therefore cannot retain it. It is not disputed that the sales tax deposited, now in dispute is not the property of the respondent. It was undoubtedly the property of the petitioner. The respondents in any case have no right to retain something which is not theirs. It is admitted by the respondents in their affidavit in paragraph 35 of the counter-affidavit that as per the assessment orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court were dismissed on various grounds. But the salient feature therein was that the order of assessments had not been annulled. The petitions were also very much delayed and so the ground of laches was also pleaded against the petitioner therein. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had followed a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in this regard. There als .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o pay back the customers; but it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent to raise this plea. In law respondents cannot retain something which is not theirs and which they are bound to refund under the provisions of the Act. Indeed not paying back would amount to depriving the petitioner of its property without due process of law. That would be unconstitutional. One may refer to article 265 of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X