TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability of Rs. 16,25,885 for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1993-94 and a sum of Rs. 12,76,111 in respect of the assessment year 1995-96. The petitioner is seeking for issue of a restraint order on the first respondent on the premise that the petitioner has filed an application in form 6-A under rule 20A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957, praying for extending the facility of instalments in terms of its application dated July 18, 2003; that even during the consideration of such application the first respondent should not be permitted to enforce the tax liability, etc. The petitioner has also sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the third respondent, State of Karnataka, to dispose of the application of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etion vested in an authority should be exercised in a proper manner, that even when the concerned authority has not exercised such a discretion the authorities cannot be permitted to resort to such recovery proceedings and in support of this submission reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. [2001] 124 STC 285. I do not find any bona fides at all even to entertain this writ petition. The liability is for the assessment year 1987-88 dated June 26, 2003 and even in the application the assessee had sought for five equal yearly instalments. Almost two years are over and it is not the case of the assessee that any amount has been paid; obviously the application is only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be considered as a precedent wherein any legal issue is decided. On the other hand the order expressly indicated that the writ petition is disposed of with certain directions, in peculiar circumstance of the given case. Therefore, it does not mean that it becomes a precedent or a principle of law required to be followed in the subsequent case. In the present case, I do not find any bona fide at all on the part of the petitioner even to approach this court. So far as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. [2001] 124 STC 285 is concerned, a decision rendered in the context of the hardship that is pleaded by an assessee with regard to the requirement of compliance with the payment of the ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
