Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10548
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
NIHAR MARKOSE – Appellant
Versus
THE FAST & TRACK TEAM – Respondent
WP(C)/12513/2010
Sri.E.P.GOVINDAN, Smt.G.DEEPA
Tribunal decisions are binding and must be considered in tax assessment reviews, affecting the outcomes of subsequent assessments.
Headnote:
Taxation - Assessment Orders - Tax Act Section List - The court addressed petitioner's challenge to assessment orders, emphasizing the requirement for re-evaluation in light of previous tribunal decisions, reinforcing legal precedence in tax assessments as instrumental in its ruling.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of an application for rectification of tax assessment orders for years 2003-04 and 2004-05, claiming they were disregarded in light of a tribunal ruling concerning earlier assessment years.
Issues: Whether the assessment orders for the years 2003-04 and 2004-05 were correctly made without consideration of applicable tribunal orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that relevant tribunal rulings must be taken into account when making tax assessments, regardless of the fiscal year.
Final Decision: The order rejecting the application was set aside, and the case was remanded for reconsideration in accordance with the tribunal's ruling.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“(i) To quash Ext.P1 and P2 assessment orders passed by the first respondent by issuing a writ of certiorari or by issuing any other appropriate writ order or direction.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pass revised orders for the years 2003-04 and 2004-05 in the light of Ext.P4 Tribunal order.
(iii) To declare that the petitioners are liable to pay tax at the rate of 4% for the sales turnover of laminated paper roll covered by entry 102 of the first schedule to the Act.”
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 issued by the second respondent, rejecting Ext.P5 application for rectification of Exts.P1 and P2 orders passed by the second respondent ignoring the mandate given by the Tribunal as per Ext.P4 order.
4. The only reasoning given by the second respondent in Ext.P6 to have ignored Ext.P4 is only that the Tribunal's Order relates to the assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03; whereas Exts.P1 and P2 are in respect of assessment for the years 2003-04 and 2004-05. In what manner, the difference with regard to the assessment year does, have a nexus, to decide the issue, is not considered or decided anywhere in Ext.P6.
5. With regard to the merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Trends Polymer Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner-III [2009 17 KTR 266 (Kerala)]. Prima facie, it appears that the matter is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court and also by the Tribunal. However, this Court does not express anything on the merits, as the matter requires to be reconsidered by the second respondent with reference to the above verdicts.
In such circumstances, Ext.P6 order is set aside and the second respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P5 in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal in Ext.P4 and in the light of the decision rendered by this Court, cited supra. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE )
vps
