HARI OM INDUSTRY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated August 4, 1999, passed by the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Revisional Authority exercising powers under Section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, "the Act") whereby the order of assessment dated November 16, 1998 was revised and the case remanded to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision in accordance with the directions issued therein.

(2.) It is not in dispute that against the impugned order an appeal is competent before the Sales Tax Tribunal under Section 39 of the Act. After the decision of the Tribunal a further remedy by way of reference to this Court is also available to the petitioner but these remedies have not been availed of. What is contended by the learned counsel is that the remedy of appeal is not an efficacious remedy in the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the case of another assessee the Tribunal has already taken a view contrary to the one canvassed by the petitioner in the present case. It is, therefore, urged that even though the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy available to it, this Court should entertain the petition and dispose of the same on merits. He has placed reliance on a decision of the apex Court in Filterco v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh [1986] 61 STC 318 and also on the decisions in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [1992] 85 STC 220, Jindal Strips Limited v. State of Haryana [1996] 100 STC 457 (P&H) and Hindsons (P.) Ltd. v. State of Punjab [1982] 49 STC 136 (P&H), to contend that no useful purpose would be served by pursuing the remedy in appeal because the Tribunal has already expressed its view on the merits of the issue in some other case and the filing of the appeal would be a mere formality as the authorities below would be bound by that decision. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel. The decision given by the Tribunal in the case of some other assessee is not a precedent so as to bind the authorities below and that the same would be binding only between the parties and it will be open to the petitioner in this case to contend to the contrary before the Tribunal. It will be equally open to the Tribunal to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier case and there is no question of that view being binding on the Tribunal in another case or even on the authorities below. As a matter of fact, in tax matters each assessment year is a separate unit for the purposes of assessment and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in any one of the assessment years are not binding even in the case of the same assessee in the subsequent assessment years and it is open to the Tribunal and the authorities below to take a view different from the one taken in the previous year. We are, therefore, of the view that merely because the Tribunal has expressed its view on the merits of the issue in another case is by itself no ground to allow the assessee to circumvent the statutory remedies which have been provided under the Act. We may refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. AIR 1985 SC 330 wherein their Lordships observed as under :

(3.) The petitioner has a right to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal and can have its grievances redressed there. This is not a fit case where the petitioner should be allowed to by-pass the remedies and approach this Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution.