The main question for consideration before the High Court was whether collar lining (bukram) is a cotton fabric for the purpose of U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 ( the). The question was decided against the appellant. The validity of show-cause notice issued to the respondents by the Sales Tax Authority under Section 21 of thewas also challenged before the High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that the issuance of the said notice was without authority of law. We have heard Mr. D. V. Sehgal, Learned counsel appearing for the appellant. He has taken us through the judgment of the High Court. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court to the effect that collar lining was cotton fabric. It is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether the notice under Section 21 of thewas permissible under law or not. The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Are you looking for a
legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a
legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and
Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.
Sales Tax Officer v. Messrs Palco Lining Company And Another
Sales Tax Officer v. Messrs Palco Lining Company And Another
(Supreme Court Of India)
Civil Appeal Nos. 2689 (NT) of 1987 | 12-01-1993
Advocate List
- For
Bench
- HON'BLE JUSTICE B. P. JEEVAN REDDY
- HON'BLE JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Eq Citations
- (1993) SUPPL. 3 SCC 529
- LQ/SC/1993/32
Head Note
Sales Tax and Valuation — U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (2 of 1948) — S. 2(11) — Cotton fabric — Collar lining (bukram) — Whether a cotton fabric — Held, it is — U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (2 of 1948) — S. 21 — Permissibility of show-cause notice under — Not necessary to go into
