https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262145 A High Court must follow a Supreme Court ruling directly construing the same taxing provisions and cannot depart from it because an additional argument was not considered earlier or because another decision concerned different enactments. Applying that binding precedent, the court held that purchase tax on sugarcane was leviable under Section 4(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and that Section 4-B did not govern Schedule B goods. The challenge based on the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase & Supply) Act, 1953 and Article 266 failed, and the taxpayer remained liable to pay purchase tax. en-us Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262145 A High Court must follow a Supreme Court ruling directly construing the same taxing provisions and cannot depart from it because an additional argument was not considered earlier or because another decision concerned different enactments. Applying that binding precedent, the court held that purchase tax on sugarcane was leviable under Section 4(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and that Section 4-B did not govern Schedule B goods. The challenge based on the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase & Supply) Act, 1953 and Article 266 failed, and the taxpayer remained liable to pay purchase tax. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262145