2015 (6) TMI 582 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of tax board s decision - Held that - The petitioner may be a department, which is responsible for generating/collecting Revenue for the State, is expected to maintain consistency in the judicial verdicts. As, in these earlier judgments, the Revenue has not made any endeavour to assail these verdicts by way of revision petition, it is not in fitness of things to examine the issue involved in this revision petition on merits. However, after examining the impugned order on merits also, at the instance of the learned counsel for the Revenue, I am affraid no question of law is involved in the matter requiring adjudication in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Revision petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 challenging the judgment and order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer.

Analysis:
The petitioner, the Revenue, filed a revision petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, challenging the judgment and order dated 4th of July, 2012 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. The Tax Board had partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue against the order passed by the first appellate authority. The impugned judgment highlighted the rescinding of a notification dated 12th of July, 2004, without any saving clause, rendering the provisions contained therein inapplicable to the assessee. The Tax Board relied on its earlier decisions by the Co-ordinate Benches while delivering the judgment.

Upon the matter coming before the Court on 06.12.2013, it was noted that the Tax Board had based its decision on previous orders, which were mentioned in the impugned judgment. The petitioner's counsel requested time to verify if the department had challenged these judgments and their outcomes. Subsequently, it was confirmed that the Revenue had not filed revision petitions against the earlier verdicts of the Tax Board mentioned in the impugned judgment, leading to the finality of those judgments. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency in judicial verdicts, especially for the Revenue department. Since the Revenue had not attempted to challenge the earlier judgments through revision petitions, the Court found no legal question necessitating adjudication in the revision petition. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed as it failed to establish any legal issue requiring revisional jurisdiction.