9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9-90 and 1990-91 were made by the assessing authority, i.e., Reported in Lakshmi Cement v. State of Rajasthan [2004] 134 STC 200 (Raj). Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Pali, vide assessment orders dated December 11, 1991 and May 20, 1993 respectively. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that the State of Rajasthan issued a notification dated May 6, 1986 in exercise of powers under section 8(5) of the CST Act allowing partial exemption from tax payable in respect of inter-State sales in the manner and subject to the conditions mentioned therein. This exemption was granted to provide incentive to reduce branch/stock transfers on which no tax is leviable in the State and to increase the inter-State sale on which the tax is leviable under the CST Act. The twin objectives which the notification seeks to achieve is to increase the quantum of goods sold in the course of inter-State trade while reducing the quantum of branch/stock transfers so as to increase the State revenue. The partial exemption given at the rate of 50 per cent/75 per cent of the CST based upon the increase in the percentage of inter-State sales and decrease in the percentage of stock/branch trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication dated May 6, 1986 based on excluding levy percentage determined vide the said order. The rectification application was rejected by the order of the assessing authority dated September 29, 1986 on the ground that the claim for the partial exemption was not made within time. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) expressed the view that the notification dated May 6, 1986 did not provide for any time-limit for claiming exemption. Accordingly, he remitted the matter to the assessing authority with the direction to allow the benefit of partial exemption in respect of inter-State sales of non-levy cement. The assessing authority found that the inter-State sale had increased in both the years taking the base year of 1984-85. Thus, a direction was given that if the appellant had deposited the partial exemption amount, the same may be refunded. He, however, did not allow the interest on the said amount of refund. For the assessment year 1991-92, the appellant claimed benefit in his pending appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). This appeal was rejected vide order dated October 7, 1996. The second appeal against the said order is pending before the Rajasthan Tax Boar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned single Judge on consideration of the various judgments of the apex Court and this Court held that the expression "for any reason" is wide enough to include the "change of opinion". In the opinion of the learned single Judge, wrong grant of an exemption can be considered as contingency which is good enough to engulf into escapement. The learned single Judge also found the judgment of the division Bench of this Court in Black Stone Rubber's case [2001] 124 STC 130; (2001) 3 RLW 1486 not a good law, as it runs contrary to the law laid down by the apex Court in Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh reported in [1959] 37 ITR 388 (SC); AIR 1959 SC 1303. It appears that the learned single Judge has not given any finding with respect to interpretation of the notification of 1986. 5.. Mr. S. Ganesh learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajendra Mehta appearing for the appellant has contended that the learned single Judge has committed serious error in refusing to rely on the binding decision of the division Bench of this Court in Black Stone Rubber's case [2001] 124 STC 130; (2001) 3 RLW 1486. It is submitted that even the analysis of the earlier judgment is binding on the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad. 7.. In Black Stone's case [2001] 124 STC 130 (Raj); (2001) 3 RLW 1486, the division Bench held that the expression "for any reason" cannot go in the realm of assuming the expression "for any reason" to bring in mere change of opinion to have a just second look on the very issue and material for drawing different conclusions either because the same officer having a second thought or a successor officer holding a different view within its compass. The division Bench relied upon the earlier division Bench judgment of this Court in National Clinic v. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer reported in (1966) RLW 257, wherein it was held that mere change of opinion will not be enough to initiate an action because in very nature of things, it will not be reasonable thing to do. However, in the subsequent decision of the division Bench in Akbarali Amanatali v. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer reported in (1976) RLW 648, the Court held that the words "for any reason" in Section 12(1) of the Act, are wide enough and the power of the Commercial Taxes Officer is not circumscribed by any condition. The said decision was followed in the matter of Bhanwar Lal Binjaram v. Assistant Commercial T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that reassessment power can be exercised even on mere change of opinion on account of the use of the words "for any reason" and another set wherein it has been held that such power cannot be invoked on mere change of opinion. However, there is a unanimity in learned counsel for both the parties that the learned single Judge should not have embarked upon the enquiry as to whether the decision given by the division Bench in Black Stone's case [2001] 124 STC 130 (Raj); (2001) 3 RLW 1486 is correctly decided or not. The only course open to the learned single Judge was either to follow the decision rendered in Black Stone's case [2001] 124 STC 130 (Raj); (2001) 3 RLW 1486 or request the Honourable Chief Justice to constitute a Full Bench for deciding the issue. 10.. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to maintain judicial propriety and decorum and following the well-settled principles in this regard, this Court while sitting in the division Bench will not be in a position to embark upon the enquiry about the correctness of the decision of the division Bench in Black Stone's case [2001] 124 STC 130 (Raj); (2001) 3 RLW 1486 and, therefore, we consider it appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
