Court dismisses challenge to tax assessment orders for dyeing works, emphasizes sales tax on chemicals.

The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging assessment orders for the years 2002-2003 and 2005-2006 related to a dyeing works contract. The petitioner's attempt to reopen a settled issue on the taxation of chemicals was rejected, emphasizing the transfer of property of goods like chemicals attracts sales tax. While the Supreme Court granted liberty for additional queries, the court clarified that unless a decision favored the dealer on those grounds, challenging the impugned orders was not permissible. The petitioner's indirect challenge to a settled decision was deemed impermissible, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions with liberty to file appeals against the orders.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders for two different years, Reopening a concluded issue regarding dyeing works contract and taxation of chemicals used, Liberty granted by the Supreme Court for additional queries, Entertaining additional grounds in a related case, Attempt to argue contrary to a settled decision.

Analysis:

1. Challenging Assessment Orders: The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging assessment orders for the years 2002-2003 and 2005-2006. The key contention was the taxation aspect related to a dyeing works contract and the distinction between goods like dyes and chemicals used in the process and consumables like fuel or welding electrodes.

2. Reopening a Concluded Issue: The court noted that the petitioner's attempt was to reopen a settled issue regarding the taxation of chemicals in a dyeing works contract. Referring to a previous judgment, the court highlighted that the transfer of property of goods like chemicals used in the bleaching process is evident, thus attracting sales tax. The court emphasized that the petitioner's argument was an indirect attempt to challenge a settled issue.

3. Liberty Granted by Supreme Court: The Supreme Court had dismissed appeals related to a similar case but granted liberty to raise additional queries. However, the court clarified that unless a decision is rendered on those additional grounds in favor of the dealer, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned orders based on those grounds. The court stressed that the judgment in the related case had attained finality.

4. Entertaining Additional Grounds: The petitioner claimed that the dealer in the related case had filed additional grounds, but there was no evidence that those grounds had been entertained or decided upon. The court emphasized that unless a decision is made in favor of the dealer on those grounds, the petitioner cannot rely on them to challenge the assessment orders.

5. Attempt to Argue Contrary to Settled Decision: The court concluded that the petitioner's attempt to argue against the settled decision indirectly was impermissible. As a result, the writ petitions were dismissed, but the petitioner was granted liberty to file appeals against the impugned orders. The appellate authority was directed to exclude a specific period while computing limitation for filing such appeals.

In summary, the judgment addressed the petitioner's challenges to assessment orders, the attempt to reopen a settled issue on taxation, the Supreme Court's grant of liberty for additional queries, the necessity of a decision on additional grounds, and the impermissibility of arguing against a settled decision.

---