1978 (3) TMI 189 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court rules liquor bottle price not subject to sales tax. Tribunal error corrected. Company's writ petition allowed.

Jagatjit Distilling and Allied Industries Limited Versus The Assessing Authority, Kapurthala and Others

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the price of bottles used for packing liquor was not subject to sales tax for specified assessment ... - Issues:1. Assessment of sales tax on the price of bottles used for packing liquor.2. Whether there was a sale of packing material (bottles) considering the delivery at the instance of excise authorities.3. Volition of the dealer in the sale of goods ordered for delivery to a particular licensee.4. Application of the decision in Jagatjit Industries' case to subsequent assessment years.5. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to rectify mistakes apparent from the record under Section 21-A of the Act.Analysis:The judgment dealt with multiple issues arising from the assessment of sales tax on the price of bottles used for packing liquor by a registered company running a distillery. The company was obligated to supply liquor in bottles with excise marks, specially manufactured for that purpose. The Assessing Authority imposed sales tax on the price of bottles for certain assessment years, leading to appeals and references to the High Court. In an earlier judgment, the High Court had ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the price of bottles was not liable to sales tax. The Supreme Court also upheld this decision, making it final for the specified assessment years.Regarding subsequent assessment years, the Tribunal dismissed appeals by the company, leading to a request for reference of questions of law to the High Court. The Tribunal, citing the earlier judgment, refused to refer certain questions but agreed to refer one question to the High Court. The company also sought rectification of orders based on the previous judgment. The Tribunal initially held that it had no power to review its decisions but later acknowledged the binding nature of the earlier judgment. However, it failed to rectify the mistake apparent from the record, as requested by the company.The Court emphasized the wide scope of Section 21-A of the Act, allowing rectification of mistakes by the Tribunal either on its own motion or when brought to its notice. The Tribunal's failure to rectify the mistake apparent on the record was deemed a jurisdictional error. Consequently, the Court quashed the Tribunal's order, directing it to rectify the mistake of law in accordance with the law. The writ petition filed by the company was allowed, and the Tribunal was instructed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 21-A. The Court also dismissed certain cases and references as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.In conclusion, the judgment addressed issues related to sales tax assessment on packing material, the application of previous judgments to subsequent years, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction to rectify mistakes under Section 21-A of the Act. It clarified the Tribunal's duty to rectify mistakes apparent on the record and upheld the company's request for rectification based on the earlier judgment's binding nature.