2011 (9) TMI 855 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Review Application - Held that - As the larger Bench has specifically over ruled the judgment dated 18.12.2007 passed in the present case, the present petition deserves to be decided in terms of the decision taken by the larger Bench.The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned notices dated 23.10.2007 and 17.11.2007, Annexures 12 & 14 to the Writ Petition are hereby quashed. The Assessing Authority will decide the proceedings afresh in accordance with the law laid down by the larger Bench referred to above ignoring the view taken in the Circular dated 25.01.2003 and the directions contained therein.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay Condonation Application for Review Application filing.
2. Quashing of notices by Assessing Authority for tax deposit.
3. Writ of mandamus restraining Assessing Authority from imposing taxes on stock transfer.
4. Dismissal of Writ Petition and appeal to Apex Court.
5. Reference of legal questions to larger Bench.
6. Judgment of larger Bench overruling previous decisions.
7. Review Application based on larger Bench decision.
8. Recall of previous judgment and quashing of impugned notices.

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins with the consideration of a Delay Condonation Application for the Review Application filing. The delay is condoned, and the application is allowed, indicating a procedural aspect addressed by the court.
2. The main issue revolves around the quashing of notices by the Assessing Authority for tax deposit, specifically excluding stock transfer from the base production quantity. The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition and mandamus against further tax imposition on stock transfers.
3. The Writ Petition was initially dismissed, leading to an appeal in the Apex Court, which granted liberty to approach the High Court for review based on legal questions referred to a larger Bench.
4. The legal questions involved the interpretation of clauses in a notification and potential conflicts with previous decisions, culminating in the larger Bench's judgment overruling prior decisions and setting new legal precedent.
5. The Review Application was filed in light of the larger Bench's decision, which specifically overruled the previous judgment in the case. Consequently, the court allowed the Review Application, recalling the earlier judgment and quashing the impugned notices by the Assessing Authority.
6. The judgment emphasizes the need to decide proceedings afresh based on the law laid down by the larger Bench, disregarding previous circulars and directions, ensuring compliance with the new legal interpretation established by the higher authority.