Cane price disallowance turned on binding precedent, leading to quashing of appellate orders and remand for reassessment.

Binding later High Court and Supreme Court decisions governed the recurring question of disallowance of excess cane price paid by sugarcane co-operative societies to members and non-members. In light of that settled legal position, the appellate orders could not be sustained and were set aside. The matter was remitted to the assessing officer for fresh consideration in accordance with the Supreme Court rulings, rather than being restored to the Commissioner (Appeals). The disallowance issue was not finally decided on its merits in these appeals; the operative effect was quashing of the impugned orders and reassessment under the governing precedent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disallowance of excess cane price paid to members and non-members was justified, and whether the orders of the appellate authorities were required to be set aside and the matter restored to the assessing officer in light of the later binding decisions.

Analysis: The appeals arose from a common substantial question of law concerning disallowance of excess cane price paid by sugarcane co-operative societies. The parties placed reliance on subsequent decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court which had already answered the issue concerning such disallowance. In view of those binding decisions, the appellate orders could not be sustained. The parties were also in agreement that the matter should be sent back to the assessing officer in accordance with the later Supreme Court ruling, rather than to the Commissioner (Appeals).

Conclusion: The disallowance issue was not finally adjudicated on merits in these appeals, but the impugned orders were set aside and the proceedings were restored to the assessing officer for fresh consideration in accordance with the Supreme Court decisions.

Final Conclusion: The revenue appeals succeeded to the extent of getting the appellate orders quashed, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration by the assessing officer under the governing law laid down by the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where binding subsequent precedent has decided the governing legal position on a recurring tax issue, the appellate orders inconsistent with that position may be set aside and the matter remitted to the assessing authority for reconsideration in accordance with that law.

---