9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - WRIT PETITION NO.1727 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2018 - AKIL KURESHI AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. Mr. Vikram Nankani, senior counsel with Mr. Prithviraj Chaudhuri i/by Mr. Mihir Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr. V.A. Sonpal, Special counsel with Ms. Jyoti Chavan, AGP for the Respondent/State. P.C.: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x. The relevant portion of the order of the Deputy Commissioner reads as under : I have gone through the assessment record alongwith grounds of appeal as discussed above and document submitted by the appellant including agreement made between MTV India Ltd. and Various Cable Operators. It is observed that The STO has levied Tax on ₹ 69,38,502/treating it as taxable TO of sale under BST Act @ 4% without mentioning the schedule entry under which tax has been levied. This amount is infact the Distribution income of the appellant from India. This amount infact represent the income received by the appellant towards the subscription charges levied on the viewers, which are in turn collected through local Cable operator. This subscripti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 herein i.e. the appellate authority ought to have followed the earlier order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. Ignoring such pleas of the petitioner, the appellate authority rejected the petitioner's contention that the transactions were not assessable to VAT/sales tax at all. He, however, gave partial relief on other grounds and disposed of the appeal by the order dated 18th March, 2018. In the context of the petitioner's reliance on the order dated 12th January, 2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax; Appellate Authority in the impugned judgment had made following observations: The appellant has heavily relied on the order of Deputy Commissioner of Appeals dated 12.1.2007 that distribution income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the appellate authority has given reasons for not following the earlier order which in any case was not binding him. He also pointed out the earlier order of the Deputy Commissioner was passed in view of the provisions contended in Bombay Sales Tax Act, whereas the present order arises under the MVAT Act. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record, we are not satisfied at all in the manner in which respondent No.2 has rejected the petitioner's contention of an earlier appellate order concluding the issue of taxability of the transaction in question. If the factual aspects or law had undergone any change since the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 12th January, 2007, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the orders of authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. It cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities; The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, if any order passed by an Assistant Collector or Collector is adverse to the interests of the Revenue, the immediately higher administrative authority has the power to have the matter satisfactorily resolved by taking up the issue to the Appellate Collector or the Appellate Tribunal as the case may be. In the light of these amended provisions, there can be no justification for any Assistant Collector or Collector refusing to follow the order of the Appellate Collector or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, even where he may have some reservations on its correctness. He has to follow the order of the higher appellate authority. This may instantly cause some prejudice to the Revenue but the remedy is also in the hands of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
