2008 (11) TMI 391 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Sales tax liability towards development charges received by the appellant-builder - Held that - Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping contentions on both sides expressly open, we direct the S.T.A. No. 2601 of 2004 to be placed before the Chairman, who is requested to constitute a special Bench in view of the conflicting opinions of the co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in terms of regulation 54(a)(i).

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over sales tax liability towards development charges received by the appellant-builder.
2. Tribunal's disagreement with its earlier co-ordinate bench's decision.
3. Failure to refer the matter to the Chairman despite the existence of regulation 54(a)(i).
4. Direction to place the matter before the Chairman for constitution of a special Bench due to conflicting opinions.
5. Request for expeditious disposal of the matter by the Tribunal.
6. No interference with the departmental enquiry ordered by the High Court.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court addressed a dispute concerning sales tax liability related to development charges received by the appellant-builder. The Tribunal expressed disagreement with a previous decision by its co-ordinate bench, highlighting an issue of conflicting interpretations within the Tribunal.

2. Despite the existence of regulation 54(a)(i), which mandates the referral of matters involving substantial departures from previous decisions to the Chairman, the Tribunal failed to follow this procedure. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to regulations in cases of conflicting decisions or substantial departures from precedent.

3. In light of the disagreement within the Tribunal, the Supreme Court directed that the matter be placed before the Chairman for the constitution of a special Bench. This decision aimed to address the conflicting opinions of the co-ordinate Benches and ensure a comprehensive review of the legal issues at hand.

4. The Court stressed the need for expeditious disposal of the case by the Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution. Additionally, the Supreme Court clarified that its directive did not interfere with the departmental enquiry ordered by the High Court, maintaining the integrity of the separate legal processes.

5. Ultimately, the civil appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. The Supreme Court's decision aimed to facilitate a thorough review of the legal issues involved and ensure a fair and consistent application of the law in the matter at hand.