9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. The Hon ble Apex Court held that even when an earlier decision of the court operated for quite sometime, the decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect, clarifying the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood. The Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim because the High Court has clarified in Gupta Metallics [ 2012 (8) TMI 818 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] that the provisions of Section 54(b) of the Act did not allow the set off to be granted on purchase of HSD. Certainly, the Commissioner in an application under Section 56 of the Act cannot say it will have prospective effect. There are no reason to interfere. Appeal dismissed. - MA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing this ruling in favour of appellant, appellant for some reason applied under Section 56 of the Act for determination of disputed questions. However, in a judgment passed by this court on 17th August 2012 in Additonal Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Gupta Metallics Power Ltd. (Sales Tax Appeal No. 13 of 2011 in VAT Second Appeal No. 55 of 2010), the court held that the provisions of Section 54(b) did not allow the set off to be granted on purchase of HSD. In the meanwhile, the law itself came to be amended on 16th February 2012, by which Rules 52 and 54 of the Rules were amended to nullify the effect of Tribunal s judgment in Gupta Metallics (supra). In view of this judgment of the High Court which has attained finality, the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime, the decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect, clarifying the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood. Paragraph nos. 40 to 44 of the said judgment read as under : 40. The core issue, therefore, is whether non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional Court (in this case a decision of the High Court of Gujarat) or of the Supreme Court can be said to be a mistake apparent from the record ? In our opinion, both the Tribunal and the High Court - were right in holding that such a mistake can be said to be a mistake apparent from the record which could be rectified under Section 254(2). 41. A similar question came up for consideration before the High Court of Gujarat in Suhrid Geigy Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is retrospective, except as regards matters that are res judicata or accounts that have been settled in the meantime . (emphasis supplied) 44. It is no doubt true that after a historic decision in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643, this Court has accepted the doctrine of prospective overruling . It is based on the philosophy: The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration . It may, however, be stated that this is an exception to the general rule of the doctrine of precedent. 5. Therefore, we cannot agree to Mr. Patkar s submission. In our view, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim because the High Court has clarified in Gupta Metallics (supra) that the provisions of Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
