9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.11.2003 (Annexure-A) and has sought a direction to that authority to give effect to the directions of the Karnataka Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal' for short) with regard to the Assessment Year: 2006-2007. 3. The facts germane to the disposal of these writ petitions are that, in respect of the aforesaid Assessment Year, re-assessment order was passed and on the outstanding dues, interest and penalty w as levied by order dated 28.03.2008. The re-assessment order was assailed before the Joint Commissioner (First Appellate Authority) and being unsuccessful therein, the petitioner assailed the orders of re- assessment as well as the order of the Joint Commissioner before the Tribunal. By judgment dated 23.04.2010, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequent decision of the Division Bench of th is Court, held that the judgment of the Tribunal was nullified. He contended that the 1 st respondent could not have taken such a view in the matter, particularly when the order of the Tribunal had attained finality and that any change in the position of law subsequent to the order of the authority attaining finality could not have been applied to the petitioner's case, inasmuch as the Tribunal's order had only to be given effect to. In support of his contention, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court. He therefore contended that, although the petitioner had assailed order dated 14.10.2011 before this court and the petitioner was relegated to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b e made to the impugned orders. 7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the material on record and on the facts as have emerged in the present case. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal in ST A Nos. 924-935/2008 being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Assessing Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 23.04.2010, allowed those appeals and held as under: "a) These twelve appeals are partly allowed. b) The impugned common appeal order dated 18.0-6.2008 passed in these cases by the FAA is hereby set-aside. c) The impugned re-assessment orders in so far as they relate to the disallowance of discount allowed to the appellant's purchasers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid finding. No doubt, after the said directions were issued, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Kitchen Appliances India Limited, Bangalore, [STRP No.84/2009 and 71- 76/2010 disposed of on 15.07.20-11], had given a contra ruling as had been given by the Tribunal in the appeals filed by the petitioner herein. That decision is subsequent to the judgment of the Tribunal dated 23.04.2010. However, the 1st respondent placed reliance on the aforesaid judgment and held that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the petitioner stood nullified. Being aggrieved by that order, W.P. No.8370/2012 was filed, which was dismissed on 16.04.2012 and thereafter, the petitioner once again approached the st respondent- Authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l s were pending before the Tribunal and the subsequent judgments of this court giving contra opinion on the position of law would have been made applicable to the case of petitioner. But when once the Tribunal h ad disposed of the appeals by allowing them and directing the 1 st respondent-authority to give effect to its directions, that order was binding on the parties to the appeals and any subsequent change in law would not have a retrospective effect on the judgment passed by the Tribunal so as to re-open the entire issue. In this context, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on certain observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of The Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Bhopal [AIR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Respondents did not take any steps to assail the same before the higher authority, therefore, they had no option but to give effect to the directions of the Tribunal. In this context, the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Vrinda P. Issac [(2012) 24 taxmann.com 131 (Kar)] are relevant, wherein this court has opined that if no steps are taken to assail a decision of a court or tribunal before the higher forum, then such a decision, even if it is erroneous, is binding on the parties and therefore, at subsequent point of time, the said decision cannot be rendered ineffective by any of the parties thereto. Possibly, in the instant case, the 1 st respondent authority was concerned about th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
