1996 (2) TMI 497 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of section 42-B of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 regarding the binding nature of the Commissioner's order on the assessing authority.

Analysis:
The applicant, a company engaged in the business of drugs and medicines, filed an application seeking direction to the Tribunal to refer a question of law arising from an order passed by the Tribunal regarding the tax rate on Protinex. The assessing authority had levied tax at 12% on Protinex, considering it as a food supplement. The applicant contended that Protinex was manufactured under a drug license and should be taxed at a concessional rate. The Tribunal upheld the higher tax rate, leading the applicant to question the binding nature of the Commissioner's order under section 42-B of the Act. The High Court noted that the order under section 42-B is binding on authorities except in appeals. Citing a previous decision, the Court emphasized that such orders are generally binding on authorities. Consequently, the Court found that the question of law regarding the binding nature of the Commissioner's order on the assessing authority does arise from the Tribunal's order and should be referred for opinion.

The Court heard arguments from both parties and analyzed the provisions of section 42-B of the Act, which state that the Commissioner's order on the rate of tax is binding on authorities except in appeals. The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the binding nature of such orders on quasi-judicial authorities. Based on the provisions of section 42-B and the legal precedent cited, the Court concluded that the question raised by the applicant regarding the binding nature of the Commissioner's order on the assessing authority is valid and should be referred for opinion.

In the final judgment, the Court allowed the applicant's application, directing the Tribunal to refer the question of law for opinion within a specified timeframe. The Court made no order as to costs, and a copy of the order was to be forwarded to the Tribunal for compliance. The application was allowed based on the interpretation of section 42-B and the binding nature of the Commissioner's order on authorities, emphasizing the importance of clarifying the legal question raised by the applicant.