BHARAT MOTORS Vs. COMM OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner & Mr. R.P.Kar, learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax.

(2.) MR . Kar, learned Standing Counsel for the Commercial Taxes submitted that the principle enunciated in above referred case by this Court placing reliance upon the decisions in connection with section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 inter lia, is not a good law, in view of the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. V. Union of India and others, 1998 111 STC 467 (SC), wherein the nine Judge Bench of the apex Court after interpretation of the constitutional provisions, namely, Articles 38, 39, 336 and 265 of the Constitution of India, provisions of section 11 -B, 11 -D, 12 -A, 12 -C and 12 -D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and rule 23 -B of the Central Excises and Salt Rules, 1944, at paragraph - 70, after referring to the decisions of this Court cited in their judgment in the case of P.Rama Rao has clearly answered the point no.2 which came up for consideration before the constitutional Bench. The relevant portion of the said paragraph -70 is quoted hereunder :

(3.) IN view of the above said legal principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the apex Court, we are of the opinion that placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P. Rama Rao by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein the clarification of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Finance Department vide letter dated 20.11.2001 (Annexure -2) was quashed as the same was without authority of law and consequently extra demand made on the petitioners therein was also quashed.