1991 (12) TMI 265 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Sales Tax Tribunal: Pending Appeal Doesn't Strip Jurisdiction

Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Versus Chauhan Enterprises

Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Versus Chauhan Enterprises - [1994] 93 STC 37 (Raj) Issues:Whether an appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal becomes infructuous after the final assessment order under section 10 is passed.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the issue of whether an appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal becomes infructuous after the final assessment order is passed. The provisional assessment order in this case determined evaded tax and penalties under sections 16(1)(i) and 16(1)(n). The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the tax and penalty under section 16(1)(i) and reduced the penalty under section 16(1)(n). Subsequently, the final assessment order under section 10 did not levy any tax or penalty for the alleged evaded sales. The Sales Tax Tribunal held that the provisional assessment order ceases to exist after the final assessment order.The judgment emphasizes the finality of orders passed in appeal, as per section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. It highlights that the appellate authority's decision binds the assessing authority, preventing the latter from levying tax if the appellate authority deems it not leviable. The judgment clarifies that a pending appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal does not strip the Tribunal of jurisdiction. If the assessing authority wishes to challenge an appellate decision, it must do so before finalizing the assessment under section 10. The judgment stresses that an appeal against a provisional assessment order does not become infructuous automatically after a final assessment order is passed.In this case, the assessing authority was bound by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) decision, and the final assessment order had to align with it unless new facts emerged. The judgment underscores that if the Sales Tax Tribunal finds the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) order incorrect, the assessing authority must modify the final order accordingly. The judgment concludes that the Tribunal's decision on the appeal's infructuous nature was incorrect, directing the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merit after notifying the parties.In summary, the judgment clarifies the interplay between provisional and final assessment orders, appellate decisions, and the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Tribunal. It underscores the importance of following appellate decisions in final assessments and ensuring that appeals do not become infructuous automatically. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and the correct interpretation of the law in such cases.