Transferred tax cases cannot be dismissed for alternative remedy, and interest levied on an overruled precedent must be refunded with interest.

Transferred writ petitions could not be rejected merely because a revisional remedy was available under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, since the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 required the Tribunal to decide the transferred subject-matter under section 8(5). Interest levied under section 11B on the footing of an earlier Supreme Court decision could not be retained after that decision was overruled by a later Constitution Bench ruling, and the collected amount was directed to be refunded with interest from the date of deposit or recovery until payment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transferred writ petitions could be rejected on the ground that an alternative remedy by way of revision was available under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954; (ii) Whether interest levied under section 11B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 on the basis of the earlier Supreme Court decision was liable to be set aside and refunded after the later Supreme Court decision.

Issue (i): Whether the transferred writ petitions could be rejected on the ground that an alternative remedy by way of revision was available under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.

Analysis: The applications had been transferred from the High Court to the Tribunal under the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995. Once transferred, the Tribunal was required to decide the subject-matter of the case in terms of section 8(5) of that Act. The statutory scheme also distinguished between summary rejection of a fresh application and adjudication of a transferred case, so the transferred matters could not be dismissed merely because a revisional remedy under the State Act existed.

Conclusion: The objection based on availability of an alternative remedy was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether interest levied under section 11B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 on the basis of the earlier Supreme Court decision was liable to be set aside and refunded after the later Supreme Court decision.

Analysis: The levy of interest had been made on the footing of the earlier Supreme Court ruling, but that ruling had subsequently been overruled by the Constitution Bench. In view of the later binding declaration of law, the basis for retaining the interest no longer survived, and the amounts recovered as interest could not be sustained. The petitioner was therefore entitled to refund, with interest on the refunded amount from the date of deposit or recovery until payment.

Conclusion: The levy of interest was unsustainable and refund was directed with interest at 12 per cent per annum.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were allowed, the interest orders were set aside, and the recovered interest amounts were ordered to be refunded with consequential interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A transferred case under the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, and once the precedent forming the basis of an interest levy is overruled, the levy cannot be sustained and the collected amount must be refunded.

---