2016 (4) TMI 761 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of different view taken by Court - Tribunal has already decided the matter in case of original petitioner - Appellant contended that it could be made permissible if the higher forum had taken a different view - Held that - if any party to the proceedings or party to the decision is permitted to reopen the issue which stood concluded by the earlier decision on a mere ground that subsequently legal position is altered, not only the sanctity of the order would be lost but it would resultant to opening a pandora box. Such is neither conceived nor can be permitted in the system of administration of justice. Once a decision has attained finality, it cannot be upset just on a mere ground that subsequently the higher forum has taken a different view. If the matter is examined in the light of the above referred legal position, it is an admitted fact that the order of the Tribunal on the basis of which the direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge is not carried before the higher forum, meaning thereby the Department accepted the decision of the Tribunal. Once the Department having accepted the decision of the Tribunal, it would not be open to the Officer of the Department to re-open the issue may be under the guise of rectification or otherwise.- Appeal disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order allowing writ petitions and directing respondent authority to implement Tribunal's directions for 2006-2007 period - Contention regarding different views by Tribunal and Court - Reopening of issue after finality of decision - Department's acceptance of Tribunal's decision - Correctness of Single Judge's decision.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal challenging an order passed by a Single Judge directing the respondent authority to implement the Tribunal's directions for the period 2006-2007. The appellant contended that a rectification order was passed due to a different view taken by the Court after the Tribunal's decision in the original petitioner's case. However, it was acknowledged that the Department did not challenge the Tribunal's decision before a higher forum. The appellant argued that the petitioner should have been directed to appeal instead of resorting to Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court emphasized the principle that a decision by a competent Court or Tribunal binds the parties involved. It highlighted that allowing parties to reopen concluded issues based on subsequent legal developments would undermine the sanctity of final orders and disrupt the administration of justice. The Court stated that once a decision attains finality, it cannot be overturned solely because a higher forum adopts a different view. In this case, since the Department accepted the Tribunal's decision by not appealing to a higher forum, the Court held that the Department cannot reopen the issue under the guise of rectification or otherwise.

Ultimately, the Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, stating that it was based on correct principles. The Court found no grounds for interference and deemed the appeal meritless, leading to its dismissal. As a result, any interim applications were also dismissed since the appeal was disposed of.