2018 (12) TMI 1283 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Taxability under MVAT Act - distribution income/subscription charges collected from sub-distributors - Held that - If the factual aspects or law had undergone any change since the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 12th January, 2007, the same has not been brought on record nor stated in the impugned order. In absence of difference in relevant facts or applicable legal provisions of development of law at the hands of higher authority or court, the respondent No. 2 could not have taken a decision different from what the Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 12th October, 2007 had done. The principle of administrative and judicial hierarchy and the requirement of following binding proceedings even by Departmental Authority exercising quasijudicial functions is all too well settled. The impugned appellate order dated 31st January, 2017 is set aside. The proceedings are placed back before the appellate authority for fresh disposal of the appeal in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order dated 31st January, 2017 passed by Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) regarding taxation of distribution income under MVAT Act.

Analysis:
1. Factual Background: The petitioner, a broadcasting agent, challenged an order including distribution income in the turnover and taxing it under MVAT Act and CST Act. The petitioner cited a previous order by Deputy Commissioner accepting similar contention.

2. Contentions: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority should have followed the earlier order by Deputy Commissioner, which was in favor of the petitioner. The appellate authority rejected this contention, stating the previous order was not binding and lacked elaboration.

3. Judicial Review: The High Court found the appellate authority's rejection unsatisfactory, emphasizing the importance of following higher appellate orders. Quoting a Supreme Court case, it highlighted the principle of judicial discipline in adhering to higher authorities' decisions.

4. Legal Hierarchy: The Court emphasized that the appellate authority should have followed the previous order unless factual or legal differences were present. It noted that the Department could still pursue taxation through revision or appeal if necessary.

5. Court's Decision: The High Court set aside the appellate order and remanded the proceedings for fresh disposal, instructing the authority to consider the observations made. The Court clarified that if there were significant factual or legal distinctions, the authority should provide reasons for an independent view.

6. Conclusion: The Court did not require the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy due to the appellate authority's failure to consider the previous order favoring the petitioner adequately. The partial reliefs granted to the petitioner in the original order were not disturbed.