Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1634 (MAD)

Tvl. AAR Bee Enterprises, Represented by its Manager, v. Lakshminarayanan VS Commercial Tax Officer

2011-03-22

M.JAICHANDREN

body2011
Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner would comply with the requirements as prescribed in Rule 12(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 and on the petitioner fulfilling the necessary conditions, the respondent may be directed to consider the request of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, thereon. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader (T) appearing on behalf of the respondent, has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the petitioner is directed to comply with the requirements as prescribed under Rule 12(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 and on the petitioner fulfilling the necessary conditions, the respondent shall consider the request of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is disposed of, in the above terms. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.