9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turnover of every dealer is liable to turnover tax, but the proviso to the said section, however excludes the turnover relating to several transactions listed therein, from turnover tax. Item (ii) under the proviso excludes the turnover relating to sale or purchase of goods specified in the Fourth Schedule to the Act. Wheat is one of the items listed in the Fourth Schedule to the Act and therefore the turnover relating to wheat is exempted from turnover tax. The respondent-Revenue authorities considered "wheat products" as different from "wheat" and therefore the exemption which was available in respect of wheat listed in the Fourth Schedule was not extended to wheat products like soji, maida and atta, etc., and according to the Revenue aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed the orders passed by the revisional authority. 2.. Three contentions were urged by the learned counsel for the appellants before us in support of these appeals-(1) The decision of the Supreme Court in [1993] 91 STC 408 (Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association v. State of Rajasthan) cannot have any retrospective effect and cannot affect the past transactions. Therefore, the revisional authority could not have revised the assessment orders passed at a time when the earlier view of the Karnataka High Court was holding the field and that the law declared by the Supreme Court can be treated to be prospective and applicable to only future transactions which would result in future assessment orders; (2) Even apart from the Supreme Court de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Supreme Court and had to be applied in all pending proceedings, at whatever stage they may be, whether before the assessing authority or appellate authority or revisional authority. The revisional authority cannot say that it will not follow the Supreme Court decision, but it will follow the Karnataka High Court decision, which was reversed and which was no longer a good law. It is of course true that the Supreme Court while laying down law under article 141 and in exercise of its paramount power can state that its decision or the declaration of law will apply to only future transactions and not to past transactions as was done in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab [1967] 2 SCR 762; AIR 1967 SC 1643. However, that power is not vested in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 (Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association v. State of Rajasthan) is binding on all authorities in the Karnataka State exercising jurisdiction under the Sales Tax Act and also binding on this Court. First contention therefore, has to be rejected. So far as the second contention is concerned it may be that the Commissioner might have issued a circular on August 25, 1991, bringing to the notice of all the assessing authorities under the Act to follow the Karnataka High Court decision which was then holding the field. But once that decision is no longer good law and reversed by the Supreme Court by [1993] 91 STC 408 (Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association v. State of Rajasthan) that circular lost all its efficacy. This is not a case in wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellate authority, but this is a case of revisional authority. Now it is too late in the day to contend as aforesaid, for the simple reason that revisional jurisdiction forms part of appellate jurisdiction as laid down by the Supreme Court in Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat AIR 1970 SC 1. Therefore, the second contention also has no force and it has to be rejected. 5.. So far as the last contention is concerned a mere look at section 21(2) of the Act makes it clear that there is no force in this contention. Section 21, sub-section (2) states that the Joint Commissioner may on his own motion call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceedings recorded under the provisions of this Act, by an A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puty Commissioner. It is only if after he became Deputy Commissioner he had passed an order, that would partake the character of an order of Deputy Commissioner. If this is not so, an order passed by a District Judge, later elevated to the High Court Bench, has to be termed as order passed by a High Court Judge, which cannot be revised by the High Court. Therefore, on the facts of the case it must be held that it was the Assistant Commissioner's order, passed on October 7, 1992, which was sought to be revised by the Joint Commissioner on February 22, 1994 and such an exercise was clearly permissible and was within the four corners of section 21(2) of the Act. The last contention is also therefore devoid of any substance. It is therefore, re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
