9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct-matter of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under section 21 of the APGST Act. Learned counsel would submit that the "issue or question", as referred to in section 20(2A) of the APGST Act, related to issues or questions of fact or law and that the finding recorded by the first respondent, that the prohibition under section 20(2A) of the APGST Act applied only where issues or questions of law were the subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal, was perverse and necessitated interference in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned counsel, even issues of fact, if pending before the Tribunal, would attract the prohibition under section 20(2A) of the APGST Act and preclude the first respondent from passing any order till the appeal pending before the Tribunal was decided. According to the learned counsel the issue of fact, which was pending before the Tribunal in T.A. No. 462 of 2007, was whether post-purchase expenses incurred by the petitioner after the sale was completed at the vendor's place formed part of the purchases and, therefore, liable to tax under section 6A of the APGST Act. Learned counsel would submit t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not sit in judgment over findings of fact recorded by the first respondent and that, on merits, the impugned order did not necessitate interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India, since all these questions could as well be agitated before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in an appeal preferred under section 21 of the Act. In Jyothi Dairy Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad [2007] 44 APSTJ 87, it was not in dispute that the issue before the revisional authority was the one under consideration before the Tribunal in the petitioner's case itself. The Division Bench, following the judgment of the Full Bench in Indo National Limited [2004] 136 STC 586 (AP); [2001] 33 APSTJ 206, and the Division Bench judgment in Vensa Biotek Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad [2007] 5 VST 388 (AP), held that, when a matter was pending before the Sales Tax Tribunal and a revision was initiated by the authority under the Act, if a request was made by the assessee to stay the revision till the disposal of the appeal, in view of the mandate of section 20(2A), stay should invariably be granted. The impugned order was set aside, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment of another single judge and a fortiori judgments of Benches consisting of more judges than one. So also, a Division Bench of a High Court is bound by judgments of another Division Bench and a Full Bench. Division Benches of High Courts cannot differ from the earlier judgments of co-ordinate jurisdiction, or of a Full Bench, merely because they hold a different view on the question of law for the reason that certainty and uniformity in the administration of justice are of paramount importance (Commissioner of Income-tax v. B.R. Constructions, Hyderabad [1993] 202 ITR 222 (AP) [FB]; [1994] 1 An. W.R. 450 [FB]). If one thing is more necessary in law than any other, it is the quality of certainty. That quality would totally disappear if Judges of co-ordinate jurisdiction in a High Court start ignoring or overruling one another's decisions. If one Division Bench of a High Court is unable to distinguish a previous decision of another Division Bench, and holding the view that the earlier decision is wrong, it by itself gives effect to that view, the result would be utter confusion (Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of W.B AIR 1960 SC 936, Shridhar v. Nagar Palik ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in relation to another assessment year, the fact may be different. But, if the issue or question relates to a point of law, the intention of the Legislature appears to be that the assessee should not be vexed on such question again and again. As indicated hereinbefore if a question or issue decided by the Appellate Tribunal is in conflict with the decision of the High Court or the Supreme Court, naturally, the latter will prevail. But unless so done, the Commissioner, on a plain reading of the aforementioned provisions, must be held to be bound by such decision of the Tribunal on question of law. A liberal meaning has normally to be attributed while interpreting a statute." (emphasis Here italicised. supplied) The law laid down by the Full Bench of this court in Indo National Limited [2004] 136 STC 586; [2001] 33 APSTJ 206, as is evident from the afore-extracted observations, is that, if the question or issue is of a fact, the same may be confined to that particular order but if the issue or question related to a point of law, the intention of the Legislature appeared to be that the assessee should not be vexed on such a question again and again and the bar under section 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd. [2005] 8 SCC 242, State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. [2005] 142 STC 1 (SC); [2005] 5 RC 307; [2005] 6 SCC 499 and L.K. Verma v. HMT Ltd. [2006] 2 SCC 269). As the bar under section 20(2A) would not apply, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that exercise of powers by the Joint Commissioner under section 20(2) of the APGST Act is without jurisdiction. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice nor are the vires of any statutory provision under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy, of an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 21 of the APGST Act, without exhausting which they have invoked the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the existence of an alternative remedy, we see no reason to express any opinion on the submission made by the learned counsel on the merits of the impugned order. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy of an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
