Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1993 (3) TMI 326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... irtue of this certificate of recognition, the petitioner claimed that the turnover in question was not liable to be taxed during the period of the certificate. The assessing authority did not accept this contention of the petitioner. The alternative contention of the petitioner that under explanation I of the Fourth Schedule, the petitioner is entitled to set-off in respect of the tax paid on the purchase turnover of paddy was also negatived. The petitioner filed an appeal to the first appellate authority. The appellate authority did not accept the first contention and held that the petitioner had used electricity for converting paddy into rice and therefore the benefit of rule 25-B was not available. On the second question, the appellate a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner under section 20, etc. The contention of the Revenue is that, when the first appellate authority gave a finding earlier, it gave rise to a cause of action to the assessee to object to the said order, but the assessee did not avail of the opportunity of filing an appeal under section 22 and if so, the earlier order of the appellate authority became final to that extent. Sri Indrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that there is no such provision similar to section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure enacted in the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. A superior court or superior Appellate Tribunal is not bound by an order of remand made earlier. The assessee is entitled .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Privy Council in Moheshur Singh's case, 7 Moo Ind App 283, the effect of the rule that at every stage of the litigation a decision not appealed from must be held to be finally decided even in respect of the superior courts, will put on every litigant against whom an interlocutory order is decided, the burden of running to the higher courts for redress of the grievances, even though it may very well be that though the interlocutory order is against him, the final order will be in his favour and so it may not be necessary for him to go to the appeal court at all. Apart from the inevitable delay in the progress of the litigation that such a rule would cause, the interests of the other party to the litigation would also generally suffer by suc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r is available for adjudication before us. If, on any other principle of finality statutorily conferred or on account of res judicata attracted by a decision in an allied litigation the matter is concluded, we too are bound in the Supreme Court. Otherwise, the whole lis for the first time comes to this Court and the High Court's finding at an intermediate stage does not prevent examination of the position of law by this Court. Intermediate stages of the litigation and orders passed at those stages have a provisional finality. After discussing various aspects of the matter, Chandrachud, J., speaking for the Court in Lonankutty AIR 1976 SC 1645 observed: "The circumstance that the remanding judgment of the High Court was not appealed against, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erlocutory in character. An assessment order cannot be split up into different portions is one of general application." A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court dealt with the question quite elaborately in Syed Alavi v. State of Kerala [1981] 48 STC 150. It was a case where the first appellate authority had remanded the matter after confirming the order of the assessing authority regarding the assessee's liability for assessment. It was held that the assessee was entitled to question the said finding at a subsequent stage before the higher appellate authority after the assessing authority made an order afresh. Technical rules governing the doctrine of res judicata normally would not be attracted to statutory proceedings, when the statutory .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates