2025 (10) TMI 810 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Delay condoned for 16 days; appeal allowed, impugned order set aside; toner and cartridges taxed under residuary goods entry

M/s Savex Technologies Private Limited Versus The State of Bihar Patna., The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Patna., The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Patna. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Patliputra Circle.

The HC condoned a 16-day delay in filing the memo of appeal and allowed I.A. No.1 of 2024; I.A. No.2 of 2024 was disposed of as not pressed. Noting that ... Seeking extension of period of limitation - condonation of delay of 16 days in preferring the present memo of appeal - the State-respondents has no objection in condoning the delay - HELD THAT:- The delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and I.A. No.1 of 2024 is hereby allowed. Application filed for stay of the impugned order - appellant State-respondents jointly submit that in spite of hearing on stay petition, the present miscellaneous appeal may be disposed off today itself as the issue involved in the present Miscellaneous Appeal and Miscellaneous Appeal No.231 of 2024, M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [2025 (8) TMI 1710 - PATNA HIGH COURT] is identical and both appeals have arisen from common order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bihar, Patna, vide order dated 5th of December, 2023 - HELD THAT:- In the light of the submissions made the present I.A. No.2 of 2024 is hereby disposed off as not pressed. Taxation of Tonner and Cartridges at the rate prescribed for goods of residuary entry - HELD THAT:- It transpires that the matters involved in the present appeal and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 231 of 2024 in M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED are directly and substantially identical, where it was held that 'Appellant has made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 passed in Appeal Case No. PT-178 of 2019 & PT-179 of 2019 (Memo No. 510, dated 14.12.2023) and they are set aside in the light of the principle laid down by the judicial pronouncement.' The present miscellaneous appeal is hereby allowed in terms of the observation made in M/S SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether the delay of 16 days in filing the memorandum of appeal ought to be condoned and the period of limitation extended. 1.2 Whether an interlocutory application for stay of the impugned Tribunal order should be pressed or disposed of as not pressed. 1.3 Whether the present miscellaneous appeal, arising from a common Tribunal order and involving issues identical to those decided in a coordinate Division Bench disposal of a companion miscellaneous appeal, should be allowed in light of that coordinate Bench's order and the judicial pronouncements relied upon therein. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the memorandum of appeal Legal framework: Extension of limitation for filing appeals is governed by the provisions allowing condonation of delay where sufficient cause is shown; the Court exercises discretion to condone delays on satisfying itself that the explanation for delay is bonafide and sufficient. Precedent treatment: The Court applied ordinary principles governing condonation of delay (no contrary precedent was invoked or distinguished in the text). Interpretation and reasoning: The appellant explained that the delay resulted from time consumed in seeking legal opinion. The State-respondents raised no objection to condonation. On the facts presented, the Court found the explanation adequate and the absence of objection relevant to exercise of discretion. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the Court's allowance of the application is a direct application of the condonation discretion to the facts; no broader dictum altering or expanding legal tests was expressed. Conclusion: The delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the interlocutory application for extension of limitation (I.A. No.1 of 2024) is allowed. Issue 2 - Application for stay of the impugned order (I.A. No.2 of 2024) Legal framework: Stay applications pending appeal are governed by principles of preservation of status quo and balancing of convenience; a party may withdraw or not press an application. Precedent treatment: None specifically invoked; the Court disposed of the application on the parties' joint submission. Interpretation and reasoning: Both parties jointly submitted that the stay application need not be pressed because the appeals could be disposed of on the same day, being identical in issues to another appeal. Given the parties' stance, the Court treated the application as not pressed and disposed it accordingly. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the Court's procedural disposition stands as a direct ruling on the interlocutory application; no substantive legal principle was articulated. Conclusion: I.A. No.2 of 2024 (stay application) is disposed of as not pressed. Issue 3 - Whether the present miscellaneous appeal should be allowed in light of the coordinate Division Bench's order in the companion appeal and cited judicial pronouncements Legal framework: Courts are required to maintain consistency in adjudication where matters are directly and substantially identical; a coordinate Bench's decision on identical issues may be followed, and principles established by binding precedent control substantive outcomes in tax classification and allied issues. Additionally, municipal courts apply relevant judicial pronouncements to determine tax liability and remedial directions to tribunals. Precedent Treatment (followed): The Court relied on and followed the reasoning adopted by the coordinate Division Bench in the companion miscellaneous appeal, which in turn applied authority from judicial pronouncements (identified in the extract as decisions addressing taxation/classification of tonner/cartridges and related adjustments). The coordinate Bench's approach was accepted by the State on instruction. Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned Tribunal order (a common order disposing of two appeals) had been the subject matter of two separate miscellaneous appeals. The coordinate Division Bench allowed one such appeal (Misc. Appeal No.231 of 2024), setting aside the Tribunal's order in light of the principle laid down by the cited judicial pronouncements and remitted or corrected aspects of the decision. The Court observed that the present appeal raises issues that are directly and substantially identical to those decided by the coordinate Bench. The State-respondents expressed no objection to decision of the present appeal in the same terms. Given identity of issues, the authority and reasoning applied by the coordinate Bench, and the absence of contrary contention, the Court concluded that interference with the impugned Tribunal order was warranted and should follow the coordinate Bench's disposition. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the Court's allowance of the present miscellaneous appeal by applying the coordinate Bench's order and the underlying judicial pronouncements is a binding outcome on the facts. The specific holding that the Tribunal order is set aside in light of the principles in the cited authorities constitutes the operative ratio for this appeal. Any discussion of the cited judgments as supporting material functions as explanatory reasoning and is subordinate to the controlling ratio. Conclusion: The present miscellaneous appeal is allowed; the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 (communicated 14/15.12.2023) passed by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal is set aside in terms of the coordinate Division Bench's order, applying the principles laid down in the judicial pronouncements relied upon in that order. The appeal is disposed of consistent with the coordinate Bench's decision.