TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have gone into that question as it is not for us to do that here either. The observations of the High Court in paragraphs 10 and 11 of its judgment excerpted above were therefore unnecessary for the purposes of the case before it. The High Court came to the conclusion that the Act stood extended to and remained operative in the State of Mizoram. That was sufficient to dispose of the controversy before it. We, accordingly, delete the said observations in paragraphs 10 and 11 form the judgment of the High Court. The certificate dated 7th August, 1987, issued by the Commissioner of Excise and Taxes, Government of Mizoram, Aizawl, it is hardly necessary to emphasise, would not survive after the judgment of the High Court was rendered. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to decide this point." In view of the orders passed by this Court in MA (F) No. 7"10. of the 1988, we deem it fit and proper to direct the present petitioners to go and appear before the learned Court to obtain necessary orders." ...... and direct the present petitioners to obtain"11. necessary orders from the learned Trial Court in the pending trial suit. Steps may be taken for realising the duty due under the Act. We make it clear that if any such proceeding is started, the respondents shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and that too after the matter is disposed of by the learned Trial Court." The need for making and the context in which the observations in paras 10 and 11 were made appear to be that the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... occasion for the High Court to make these observations limiting the powers of the authorities under the `Act' and that, at all events, in view of the order dated 29-4-1988 made by this Court it was neither necessary nor appropriate to place any limitations on the authorities on the basis of what the High Court considered to be the subsisting effect of the interlocutory orders in the suit. Learned Attorney-General further urged that the observations of the High Court in para 8 of its judgment were again not only inconsistent with its own pronouncement on the principal question that arose in the case but also a timorous view to take of the effect of some certificate issued by the Commissioner of Excise and Taxes of the Government of Mizoram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 and 11 of its judgment excerpted above were therefore unnecessary for the purposes of the case before it. The High Court came to the conclusion that the Act stood extended to and remained operative in the State of Mizoram. That was sufficient to dispose of the controversy before it. We, accordingly, delete the said observations in paragraphs 10 and 11 form the judgment of the High Court. The certificate dated 7th August, 1987, issued by the Commissioner of Excise and Taxes, Government of Mizoram, Aizawl, it is hardly necessary to emphasise, would not survive after the judgment of the High Court was rendered. The observation of the High Curt in para 8 of its judgment implying that matter had to be clarified only in the suit is wholly er ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
