Court validates sales tax re-computation, upholds State Govt's surcharge clarification, orders interest from Supreme Court judgment date.

The court upheld the re-computation of sales tax by the Deputy Commissioner for various assessment years based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law. The State Government's clarification on surcharge was deemed valid following the Supreme Court's reversal of the High Court's decision. The re-computation orders were considered timely and valid, with interest payable only from the date of the Supreme Court judgment. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to issue fresh orders in accordance with the court's decision, concluding the writ petitions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Re-computation of sales tax payable for different assessment years by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax.
2. Interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Bajaj Auto Ltd.
3. Challenge to the clarification issued by the State Government regarding surcharge under the Orissa Sales Tax Act.
4. Effect of the judgment of the High Court and subsequent reversal by the Supreme Court on re-computation orders.
5. Limitation period for re-computation orders under the Orissa Sales Tax Act.
6. Justification for the levy of interest on the differential tax amount.

Analysis:
1. The petitions questioned the re-computation of sales tax by the Deputy Commissioner for various assessment years based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. The basis of re-computation was the interpretation of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and the Orissa Entry Tax Act by the taxing authority.

2. The High Court previously held that the State Government's clarification on surcharge was misconceived, but the Supreme Court, in its judgment, reversed this decision. The subsequent orders by the High Court for subsequent assessment years were not challenged separately, leading to the current re-computation dispute.

3. The Supreme Court's judgment mandated re-computation of tax payable in accordance with its interpretation of the law, rendering the previous High Court orders obsolete. The legal principle established by the Supreme Court is binding on all authorities under Article 141 of the Constitution, justifying the re-computation orders.

4. The re-computation orders were not considered time-barred as they were issued promptly following the Supreme Court's decision. The absence of a specific limitation period for re-computation further supported the validity of the orders.

5. Regarding the levy of interest, the petitioner was deemed justified in contending that interest should be payable only from the date of the Supreme Court judgment. Citing the precedent in Food Corporation of India v. State of Haryana, the court modified the demand notices to reflect interest payable post the Supreme Court's decision.

6. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to issue fresh orders re-computing the amount payable based on the interest modification. The petitioner was barred from challenging these orders as long as they complied with the court's directions, thereby concluding the writ petitions.

---