TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - Dated:- 31-1-2011 - J. Chelameswar, P.R. Ramachandra Menon, JJ. E.K. Nandakumar for the Applicant JUDGMENT J. Chelameswar, J 1. All these Sales Tax Revisions arise out of a common order of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam dated 15.05.2009 rendered in seven Tax Appeals. The appeals relate to various assessment years, commencing from 2001-2002 to 2004-2005 of the same assessee, i.e. M/s.Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. 2. For the said assessment years, the respondent-assessee filed returns. The assessing authority, on examination of the returns, came to the conclusion that there was a short payment of the tax due with reference to each of the assessment years and, therefore, opined t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ood law, but came to be overruled by the decision in 2010 (1) KLT 786 on 16.12.2009, i.e. some 50 days after the expiry of the period of limitation in each of these cases. The learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, argues that a subsequent judicial declaration laying down the correct position of law of is not a ground for condoning the delay in preferring an appeal or revision. The learned counsel in support of his submission relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab [AIR 1967 SC 1643 1967 Indlaw SC 1493]. The learned counsel relied upon certain passages of the judgment of Chief Justice K.Subba Rao dealing with the prospective overruling of the various Constitutional amendments which were in challe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that permitting the reopening of the assessments would virtually be enabling the assessing authority to sit in judgment over the decision of the appellate authority and such a course is not permissible in law. If the Revenue is of the opinion that the appeals were wrongly decided, the course open for the Revenue is to challenge the correctness of the decision of the appellate authority before the appropriate higher forum in accordance with law; but not to reopen the assessment on the ground that the view taken by the appellate authority is not consistent with the law declared subsequently either by the High Court or the Supreme Court. 7. We are in respectful agreement with the principle laid down by the Madras High Court. But, we a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds were filing civil suits for eviction of the tenants. However, Section 31 of the Act, which carved out the exception in favour of buildings which fetch a rent of more than 500 rupees, was held to be violative of Article 14 and unconstitutional. The result was that irrespective of the rent fetched by the building, even non-residential building also, fell within the purview of the Act and consequently eviction was only possible by orders of the Tribunal created under the Act, but not by decrees of civil Court. The question arose as to the fate of the decrees passed by the civil Courts, but were pending consideration in appeal before the declaration of the unconstitutionality of Section 31. Dealing with the said question, the Karnataka High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
