9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by memo dated 12.07.2012, asked them to pay a further sum of Rs. 1,35,00,512/- towards 12.5% of the disputed tax. The petitioner submitted a representation on 19.07.2012 regarding computation of 12.5% of the disputed sales tax. The 2nd respondent, by order dated 24.07.2012, rejected the appeal on the ground that the petitioner had not paid 12.5% of the balance disputed sales tax of Rs. 1,35,00,512/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal ("STAT" for short) in T.A.No.357 of 2012. The STAT disposed of TA No.357 of 2012, by order dated 04.01.2013, directing the 1st respondent to afford the petitioner a personal hearing, in the appeal filed by them, to enable them to produce proof of payment of 12.5% of the disputed sales tax. In the interregnum, the petitioner also filed a representation to the 1st respondent on 27.08.2012 to revise the earlier assessment order passed for the earlier years. The 1st respondent issued certificate dated 12.10.2012, towards VAT credit of the petitioner as on 31.08.2012, for Rs. 92,01,006/-. Another certificate was issued regarding excess credit of sales tax, paid for the earlier appeals, of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposit; the Division Bench of the High Court, in Ankamma Trading Company v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) [2011 (53) APSTJ 1] , had held that payment of the admitted tax/12.5% of the disputed sales tax, beyond the period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the assessment order, would disable the appellate authority from admitting the appeal; and, in view of Section 31 of the AP VAT Act and the decision of the High Court in Ankamma Trading Company1, the appeal could not be admitted. The 2nd respondent rejected admission of the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. Sri Tejprakash Toshniwal, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that in M/s. Ideal Detonators Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (Order in SLP (Civil) No.32221 of 2011 dated 17.09.2012) , the Supreme Court had directed the Appellate Deputy Commissioner to revive the earlier order and dispose of the same on merits, after due notice to the parties; in Fytochem Formulations Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [(2014) 58 APSTJ 231] , a Division Bench of this Court had held that it is incumbent on the Commercial Tax Officer to decide the representation submitted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicial discipline. (State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd [(2004)11 SCC 26] ; Chandra Prakash5). Certainty of the law, consistency of rulings and comity of courts - all flowering from the same principle - converge to the conclusion that a decision once rendered must later bind like cases. (Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanhaiya Lal [(1975) 2 SCC 232]. The decision rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court is binding upon another Division Bench. (Govt. of A.P. v. N. Rami Reddy [2001(1) ALT 438 (D.B)] ). An order passed by the Court, not consistent with its own earlier decisions on law, is bound to send out confusing signals and usher in judicial chaos. (Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1] . In order to guard against the possibility of inconsistent decisions on points of law by different Division Benches, and in order to promote consistency and certainty in the development of the law and its contemporary status, a rule has been evolved that the pronouncement of law by a Division Bench is binding on another Division Bench. (Union of India v. Raghubir Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 754] ). The doctrine of binding precedent has the merit of promoting certainty and con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt, by order dated 17.09.2013, dismissed W.P. No.15384 of 2013 following the law laid down in Ankamma Trading Company1. The Division Bench held that the order of the Supreme Court, in SLP (Civil) No.32221 of 2011 dated 17.09.2012, was an order passed in the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Constitution has, by Article 142, empowered the Supreme Court to make such orders as may be necessary "for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it", which authority the High Court does not enjoy. The jurisdiction of the High Court, in writ proceedings, is circumscribed by limitations which cannot be transgressed on the whim or subjective sense of justice varying from Judge to Judge. (State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar [(1992) 1 SCC 489] . The power which is available to the Supreme Court under Article 142 is not available to the High Courts. (Chairman, Grid Corpn. Of Orissa Ltd (Gridco) v. Sukamani Das [(1999) 7 SCC 298]. The power conferred on the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not on par with the constitutional jurisdiction conferred upon the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to admit the appeal. Till the disposal of the representation dated 23.07.2013, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax amount." The earlier judgment of the Division Bench in Ankamma Trading Company1 was not referred to therein. The said order does not also contain reasons for issuing such directions. A decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law. No reliance can be placed on an order of the Court which contains directions without assigning reasons. (Surinder Kumar17). The petitioner is, therefore, not justified in contending that a direction, similar to the one issued in Fytochem Formulations Ltd.3, should be issued in this Writ Petition also. In Chander Prakash Goyal4, the Supreme Court held: "A liability of Rs. 5,73,757/- has been fastened on the appellant. The appellant claims to be a self-employed technical entrepreneur having started a small business of manufacturing brass utensils. On account of the sales tax proceedings which created a liability disproportionate to his means, he has been thrown out of business and his industry has been closed down. In our opinion sufficient cause for delay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
