2004 (8) TMI 652 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders of Sales Tax Tribunal regarding exemption from sales tax.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged orders of the Sales Tax Tribunal dated December 11, 1987, and December 30, 1989, seeking a declaration for exemption from payment of sales tax. The petitioner dealt with cooking gas, hot plates, and spare parts, purchasing hot plates from outside Maharashtra State. The Sales Tax Officer taxed sales at 8%, which the petitioner believed to be exempt under entry 164(v) of the Notification issued under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. A rectification application was filed under section 62 of the Act, but it was rejected by the Sales Tax Officer and subsequent appeals were dismissed. The petitioner cited a decision by the Third Bench of the Sales Tax Tribunal, where exemption was granted for a subsequent period, unchallenged by the department, arguing for the application of res judicata.

The petitioner contended that hot plates should be covered under entry No. 164(v) rather than entry No. 45 or 144 of the notification. The petitioner relied on specific legal precedents to support the argument that the decision of the Third Bench of the Sales Tax Tribunal, unchallenged by the department, should be considered as res judicata. The Court examined the precedents cited and clarified that the principle of res judicata in tax matters applies to decisions of the High Court, not necessarily to decisions of tribunals like the Sales Tax Tribunal.

The Court observed that for a subsequent period, the Third Bench of the Sales Tax Tribunal had exempted hot plates from sales tax, a decision not challenged by the department. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders of the Sales Tax Tribunal dated December 11, 1987, and December 30, 1989, declaring that hot plates are covered by entry No. 164(v) of the Notification and are exempt from sales tax. The Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents could not justify the impugned orders, leading to the quashing and setting aside of the said orders. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.