TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petition No.837 OF 2014 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2014 - Ramesh Ranganathan And M. Satyanarayana Murthy, JJ. ORDER: Sri Ramesh Ranganathan, The order of the 2nd respondent dated 31.12.2013, rejecting admission of the petitioner s appeal for the tax period 2010-2011, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The petitioner, a private limited company carrying on business in bullion, silver and gold ornaments, is a registered dealer under the AP VAT Act on the rolls of the 1st respondent. They purchase bullion and gold ornaments from VAT registered dealers within the State of Andhra Pradesh and from registered dealers outside the State, and effect sales within the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner was assessed to tax by the 1st respondent, for the tax period 01.04.2010 to June, 2011, by assessment order dated 11.06.2012. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the 2nd respondent, and deposited ₹ 9,30,756/- towards 12.5% of the disputed sales tax. The 2nd respondent, by memo dated 12.07.2012, asked them to pay a further sum of ₹ 1,35,00,512/- towards 12.5% of the disputed tax. The petitioner submitted a representatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the date of the final assessment order was 11.06.2012, and a copy thereof was served on the same day; the time limit of sixty days for payment of 12.5% of the disputed sales tax was 10.08.2012; the petitioner had paid only ₹ 9,30,756/- on 09.07.2012, as against 12.5% of the disputed sales tax of ₹ 1,44,31,268/-; and the short payment, towards 12.5% pre-deposit, was ₹ 1,36,00,512/-. After noting the petitioner s claim of ₹ 95,70,648/-, towards penalty and interest for the year 2005-06, and tax of ₹ 66,46,284/- for the period 2005-06, as per the re-assessment proceedings of the Commercial Tax Officer dated 13.10.2012, and the excess credit of ₹ 92,01,006/- claimed in the VAT return for the month of August, 2012 filed on 29.09.2012, the 2nd respondent held that both the reassessment order, and the return filed by the petitioner, was after expiry of the maximum period of sixty days stipulated under the second proviso to Section 31(1) of the Act; while the petitioner had filed the appeal on 11.07.2012 within time, they did not pay 12.5% of the disputed sales tax towards pre-deposit; the Division Bench of the High Court, in Ankamma Trading Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to keep the scale of justice even and steady and not liable to waver with every new judge's opinion, as also because the law in that case being solemnly declared and determined , what before was uncertain, and perhaps indifferent, is now become a permanent rule, which it is not in the breast of any subsequent judge to alter or vary from, according to his private sentiment. . . The doctrine of binding precedent is of utmost importance in the administration of our judicial system. It promotes certainty and consistency in judicial decisions. (Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P. (2002) 4 SCC 234]. If one thing is more necessary in law than any other, it is the quality of certainty. (Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of W.B. [AIR 1960 SC 936] ; Shridhar v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur [1990 (Supp) SCC 157)] ). In a country governed by the rule of law, law has to be certain and uniform. (State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals [(1991)4 SCC 139] ; Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s B.R. Constructions (1994) 1 An .W.R.450 (FB) . Certainty of the law and consistency of rulings are fundamental to the rule of law and form the core of judicial discipline. (State of Punjab v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ankamma Trading Company1. It is no doubt true that aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in Ankamma Trading Company1, M/s.Ideal Detonators Pvt. Ltd. had carried the matter in the appeal to the Supreme Court by way of SLP (Civil) No.32221 of 2011 which was disposed of by order dated 17.09.2012. The Supreme Court, while making it clear that they had not evaluated the merits of the grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition, held that although, admittedly, 12.5% of the disputed tax had not been deposited within the time granted, yet, in the interest of justice, they deemed it proper and expedient to direct the Appellate Deputy Commissioner to revive the same and dispose them of on merits, after due notice to the parties. M/s. S.E. Graphites Private Limited, whose appeal was also rejected by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on the ground that they had failed to pay the admitted tax within the stipulated maximum period of sixty days, filed W.P. No.15384 of 2013 relying on the order of the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.32221 of 2011 dated 17.09.2012. A Division Bench of this Court, by o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. As no such power is available to this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would not be open to us, in the light of the judgment in Ankamma Trading Company1, to pass any order or issue any direction contrary thereto. In Fytochem Formulations Ltd.3, a Division Bench of this Court observed : After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that it was incumbent for the 1st respondent to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner and in case, it is found that the petitioner is entitled to the excess amount, then a certificate/endorsement be issued to the petitioner, so that the amount can be adjusted towards pre-deposit of 12.5% at the time of admission of the appeal. In view of the above, we set aside the order dated 16.11.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent and direct the 1st respondent to decide the representation dated 23.07.2013 submitted by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the representation of the petitioner is accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
