TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances of the case, the impugned order dated March 9, 2007 passed by respondent No. 2 and notice dated March 14, 2007 issued by respondent No. 3 are illegal and are liable to be quashed. - Writ Tax No. 1142 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2013 - PRAKASH KRISHNA AND RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA) J.- Heard Sri Ashok Kumar for the petitioner and Sri C. B. Tripathi, Special Counsel for the State of U.P. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated March 9, 2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-I, Trade Tax, Ghaziabad Zone, Ghaziabad (respondent No. 2) and notice dated March 14, 2007 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment)-2, Trad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onic goods . It has also been stated in the reply that for the year 2003-04, the parts manufactured by the petitioner were assessed in the head of other electronic goods against which, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 737 of 2006 before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) which was allowed by the judgment dated November 30, 2006 in which it has been held that the parts manufactured and sold by the petitioner are the components of electronic goods and liable to be assessed in the head of electronic goods . Since the judgment of the appellate authority inter-parties has become final, accordingly, it is binding upon the assessing officer and no reassessment proceeding is required to be taken. However, respondent No. 2 by the impugned order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Income-tax Officer v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das, Lakhimpur Kheri [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC); AIR 1965 SC 342, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 3 VST 95 (SC); [2006] 145 STC 91 (SC); [2006] 282 ITR 273 (SC); [2006] 6 RC 276; AIR 2006 SC 1383 and judgment of this court in Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd. v. State of U.P. [2010] 35 VST 86 (All). Having considered the arguments of the parties, the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2006] 3 VST 95 (SC); [2006] 145 STC 91 (SC); [2006] 282 ITR 273 (SC); [2006] 6 RC 276; AIR 2006 SC 1383 after reviewing the earlier case law, held as follows (pages 104 and 105 in 145 STC): 20. The decisions cited have uniformly held that res judicata does not apply in matters pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he head of electronic goods . This order between the parties has become final. Since the issue of fact between the parties has been finally decided by the appellate authority, as such, the order was binding upon the assessing authority and it was not proper for him to reopen the assessment proceeding taking a contrary view. In the circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated March 9, 2007 passed by respondent No. 2 and notice dated March 14, 2007 issued by respondent No. 3 are illegal and are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated March 9, 2007 passed by respondent No. 2 and notice dated March 14, 2007 issued by respondent No. 3 are quashed. However, the parties shall bear the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
