9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition is as follows: The petitioner was doing business in the name and style of Vishal Agencies, Madurai. The activities of the petitioner are bringing ready-made garment sellers at Bombay and other up-countries and the purchasers in Tamil Nadu together. The respective parties negotiated themselves for purchase of goods, i.e., ready-made garments and the mode and time of making payment for the purchases so made. The only part played by the petitioner in these transactions apart from making the parties to meet together, was to stand as a guarantor for the payment to be made by the Tamil Nadu purchasers. Thus, according to the petitioner the petitioner cannot be regarded as a dealer as defined in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In view of the petitioner's peculiar trading activities and on the bona fide impression that the petitioner is not a dealer, the petitioner has not registered himself as a dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 or under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. While that being so, one of the dealers in Tamil Nadu, M/s. Mastex, Sundaram Arcade of Trichy, not satisfied with the quality of the goods purchased from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March 1, 2000. The petitioner preferred second appeals before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai in M.T. As. Nos. 292 and 293 of 2000. In order to put forth its case the petitioner filed a petition before the Tribunal seeking for a direction directing the first respondent, the assessing officer, to furnish the petitioner the copies of D7 records seized from the petitioner's premises which formed the basis for assessment. The Tribunal by its order dated July 23, 2001 passed an order directing to furnish copy of D7 records at the cost of the petitioner. The respondent-Revenue filed review applications before the Tribunal in M.T.R.A. Nos. 53 and 54 of 2002 and got the order of the Tribunal dated July 23, 2001 modified to the effect that the copies of D7 records shall be issued to the respondent on the respondent producing the relevant accounts. The correctness of the said order made in the review applications is canvassed before this court by relying on a judgment of the Division Bench of this court dated August 26, 2002 made in Writ Petition Nos. 22433 and 22434 of 2002 in the case of Vijaya Oil Mills v. DCTO, Madurai. I heard the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion as and when the assessee applies for copies of D7 records, it is obligatory on the part of the assessee to produce the accounts before the authorities and have them checked with the D7 records and thereafter obtain the copies of D7 records for agitating the matter or explaining about the entries contained in D7 records to satisfy the authorities that those incriminating documents are already incorporated in the accounts or that those document have nothing to do with the business transaction. Instances are galore that as and when the inspection has been conducted and the documents have been recovered under D7 immediately the dealer applied for D7 copies and after obtaining the copies manipulated the accounts to suit the convenience. Hence, this court as well as the Tribunal in ever so many cases have directed the authorities to furnish the copies of D7 records after verifying the accounts with reference to D7 records recovered. In this case, it is obvious that the petitioner has never responded to the summons issued by the assessing officer to appear before him with relevant records to frame assessment. Even the pre-assessment notice issued by the assessing officer has not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to be challenged in the superior court. That applies to the High Court also. The Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat [1987] 1 SCC 213 observed: The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. (See Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem [1901] Appeal Cases 495) In the case of Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. AIR 1987 SC 1023 (at page 1042) the apex court held: Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1480, it was observed, 'it is trite to say that a decision is binding not because of its conclusions but in regard to its ratio and the principles, laid down therein'. Any declaration or conclusion arrived without application of mind or preceded without any reason cannot be deemed to be declaration of law or authority of a general nature binding as a precedent. Restraint in dissenting or overruling is for sake of stability and uniformity but rigidity beyond reasonable limits is inimical to the growth of law. (emphasis(1) supplied) In the case of Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi [1996] 6 SCC 44, at page 52, the Supreme Court held: According to the well-settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic postulates: (i) findings of material facts, direct (1)Here italicised. and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government. In the present case the Government of India had clearly averred that it had nothing to do with the State Trading Corporation and there was no relationship of master and servant between the petitioners and the Government of India and, therefore, the Government of India was not in any manner concerned with the closure of the leather garment unit of the State Trading Corporation and the consequences thereof. Mr. Usgaocar rightly emphasised that the decision on which the High Court had relied could not be treated as a precedent and in support of this contention he drew our attention to a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Krishena Kumar v. Union of India [1990] 4 SCC 207. In paras 18 and 19 the question as to when a decision can have binding effect has been dealt with. We need say no more as it is obvious from the decision relied on that it does not set out the facts or the reason for the conclusion or direction given. It can, therefore, not be treated as a binding precedent. In the case of Arnit Das v. State of Bihar [2000] 5 SCC 488 the Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 20 as under: A decision not expressed, not accompanied by reasons and not proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
