1976 (7) TMI 159 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Whether the additional revising authority was correct in holding that the appeal filed by the dealer should have been entertained despite non-payment of tax on cane-crushers previously held taxable by the High Court.

Analysis:
The case involved an assessee, a dealer in iron, steel, and cane-crushers, who filed a return for the assessment year 1961-62, denying liability to pay tax on cane-crushers, claiming they were agricultural implements. The assessing authority rejected this claim, leading the assessee to file an appeal without depositing the tax on the cane-crushers. During the appeal, the department objected, stating non-compliance with the proviso to section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, as the tax was not paid. The appellate court accepted this objection. The assessee then filed a revision, which was allowed based on the principle that the appellate authority should determine the admitted tax liability based on the memorandum of appeal, not the return. However, a previous decision of the court had already established that cane-crushers were taxable, making the matter settled law.

The High Court emphasized that the decision on cane-crushers as taxable had been conclusively settled by a previous court ruling, making it binding on the appellate authority and the Judge (Revisions). The Court noted that the assessee's attempt to deny tax liability on cane-crushers, claiming they were agricultural implements, was not genuine, especially since there had been no amendment to the relevant notification at the time of appeal. The Court referenced a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that allowing an assessee to deny liability in the appeal memorandum would render the statutory provision meaningless.

Given the settled nature of the issue and the potential misuse of the appeal process, the High Court ruled against the assessee, stating that the additional revising authority was incorrect in holding that the appeal should have been entertained without the tax payment on the cane-crushers. The Court's decision was in favor of the department and against the assessee. As there was no representation from the assessee, no costs were awarded. The reference was answered in the negative, affirming the department's position.