MOTTUR HAJEE ABDUL RAHMAN AND CO Vs. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER VANIYAMBADI NORTH ARCOT DT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in these petitions filed W. P. Nos. 1857 and 1858 of 1968 challenging the validity of Item 7 of the Second Schedule to the Madras General sales-tax Act 1959 and prayed for writs of Prohibition restraining the State of madras and the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vaniyambadi, North Arcot Dt. , the first respondent in these petitions from taking all further assessment proceedings in respect of the years 1967-68 and 1968-69 enforcing any of the provisions in item 7 of the Second Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. At the same time, the petitioner also filed C. M. P. 7154 of 1968 and 7155 of 1968 in the said writ petitions praying for stay of all further assessment proceedings for the respective years pending disposal of the said writ petitions. The writ petitions and the Civil Miscellaneous petitions carne up for admission and on 7th May, 1968, this court directed the issue of rule nisi in the writ petitions and passed an interim order of stay in the civil miscellaneous petitions in the following terms:

(2.) ON 17th June, 1968, I directed notice to the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents filed a counter affidavit dated 29th June, 1968. In the counter affidavit it was contended that the action taken by the respondents had nothing whatever to do with the pendency of the writ petitions on the file of this court and the interim order of stay passed by this Court on 7th May, 1968. However, the respondents submitted that they had no intention whatever to disobey the orders of this Court. They wound up by stating--

(3.) I have no doubt whatever that the notice dated 9th May, 1968, issued to the petitioner does constitute contempt of this Court. The interim order of stay issued by this Court clearly told the respondents that writ petitions had been filed challenging the validity of Item 7 of the Second Schedule to the Madras General sales Tax Act of 1959, and on that basis they were required not to take any further assessment proceedings for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69 in respect of the petitioner, pending further orders on the petitions. As I extracted already the notice dated 9th May, 1968, categorically informed the petitioner that according to the provisions in force the petitioner was liable to tax on the transactions effected by him as registered dealer. It is conceded before me that the 'provisions in force' referred to in the said notice are the identical provisions whose validity has been challenged in the writ petitions before this Court and with respect to which alone stay order has been issued. Consequently, in issuing the notice dated 9th May, 1968, the respondents clearly contravened the orders of stay passed by this Court.