TMI Blog1977 (1) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view which has been taken by the Additional Judge (Revisions) in his order dated December 28, 1968. - C.A. No. 1694 of 1971, C. Misc. Writ No. 973 of 1969 - - - Dated:- 4-1-1977 - KRISHNA IYER V.R. AND SHINGHAL P.N. JJ. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (O.P. Rana, Advocate, with him), for the appellants. A.K. Sen Senior Advocate (J.P. Goyal and Shreepal Singh, Advocates, with him), for the respondent. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL, J .-This appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh and three Sales Tax Officers is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated February 11, 1970. The High Court has granted a certificate of fitness under clause (c) of article 133(1) of the Constitution. The respondent, Modi Industries Limited, hereinafter referred to as the dealer, was known earlier as the Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. It manufactured various articles like sugar, oil, vanaspati and soap. It exercised the option under section 7 (as it stood prior to its amendment by section 7 of U.P. Act 19 of 1956) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to submit i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the High Court. The High Court held in its order dated February 22, 1966, that the dealer was entitled to interest at the rate of two per cent on the refundable amount. The dealer accordingly made an application to the revising authority on October 11, 1968, to pass an order under sub-section (6) of section 11 for a refund of Rs. 3,48,420.13 with interest at two per cent per annum. The Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, however dismissed the application by his order dated December 28, 1968, as he took the view that that was not permissible because of the insertion of section 31 in the Act by the Uttar Pradesh Bikri Kar (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1962 (U.P. Act 3 of 1963), hereinafter referred to as the amending Act. The dealer felt aggrieved and filed a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution. It is that petition which has been allowed by the impugned judgment of the High Court dated February 11, 1970, by which the order of the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Meerut, dated December 28, 1968, has been quashed and a direction has been given to him to pass an appropriate order under section 11(6) of the Act in accordance with the law and in the light of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the altered rates were in force during the previous year also proportionately for the same number of days as they are in force during the assessment year. (2) Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, all assessments or orders made, actions or proceedings taken, directions issued, jurisdictions exercised or tax levied or collected by any officer or authority purporting to act under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 7, as it stood prior to its amendment by section 7 of U.P. Act XIX of 1956, shall be deemed to be good and valid in law as if such assessments, orders, actions, proceedings, directions, jurisdictions and tax have been duly made, taken, issued, exercised, levied or collected, as the case may be, under or in accordance with the said provisions of this Act as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Bikri Kar (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1962, and as if the amendment so made had been in force on all material dates. Explanation .-For the purposes of this section the expression 'previous year' shall have the meaning assigned to it in sub-clause (ii) of clause (j) of section 2 of this Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by section 2 of U.P. Act XIX of 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licable to the various commodities on April 1, 1948, and for the assessment year 1949-50 at the rate applicable on April 1, 1949, was binding on the Additional Judge (Revisions) in spite of the amendment made by the amending Act by insertion of section 31 in the Act. The High Court has taken the view in its impugned judgment dated February 11, 1970, that the revising authority was not free to take a different view from the one expressed by it (High Court) on "any ground whatsoever", including the ground of any subsequent amendment in the law, and that it was bound to decide the case in conformity with the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has expressed its view as follows: "The judgment of the High Court may be said to have become erroneous as a result of the amendment, but so long as the judgment stands, it is binding upon the parties and the revising authority has no option except to give effect to it in its order passed under section 11(6)." The High Court further made the following observation: "We, however, express no opinion as to the course which the department should adopt in a situation like this, but we have no doubt in our mind that the amendment brought a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1961, which had become unenforceable by the aforesaid section 31. It has to be appreciated that even if the Additional Judge (Revisions) had passed an order under sub-section (6) of section 11 of the Act as directed by the High Court, that would have been of no consequence and would have been inoperative because of the specific provisions of sub-section (2) of section 31, so that the position would have been the same as if no such order had been passed at all. The High Court has expressed the view that if its judgment (dated July 24, 1961) was considered by the department to be erroneous, it could have filed an appeal against it to this Court under article 136 of the Constitution to have it set aside or modified. It is not clear to us how that would have been possible when the amending Act had not been passed till then, and was enacted some 1 1/2 years thereafter. The other suggestion of the High Court that it may have been open to the department to ask for a fresh reference to it against the order of the revising authority under section 11(6) on the ground that by the amendment a fresh question of law had arisen, is also untenable because that order (dated December 28, 1968) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
