Binding Supreme Court declaration of law can unsettle final tax orders and require fresh reconsideration.

A later Supreme Court declaration of law under Article 141 can justify quashing earlier tax orders that had otherwise attained finality when those orders are inconsistent with the binding legal position. In this matter, the High Court treated the subsequent Supreme Court ruling on tax on transfer of goods as governing the pending challenge, held the revisional and appellate orders unsustainable, and directed fresh consideration by the revisional authority in accordance with the law so declared.

---

---

Issues: Whether assessment and revisional orders that had attained finality could be quashed and remitted for fresh decision in view of a later Supreme Court ruling clarifying the law on levy of tax on transfer of goods.

Analysis: The Court held that finality attached to the earlier orders did not bar relief when a subsequent declaration of law by the Supreme Court governed the controversy. Relying on the binding force of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the Court treated the later Supreme Court pronouncement as applicable to the pending challenge and accepted that the impugned orders had to conform to the law so declared. On that basis, the revisional and appellate orders were held unsustainable.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were liable to be quashed and the matter was required to be decided afresh by the revisional authority.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the tax liability order and the appellate order were set aside with a direction for reconsideration in accordance with the law declared by the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A later declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 can justify quashing final tax orders where the impugned levy is inconsistent with that binding declaration.

---