TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 933
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mo issued by the Commissioner of Industries dated May 17, 2000, purporting to withdraw the tax holiday for industrial gases, etc., the first respondent issued show-cause notice dated July 29, 2000 proposing to assess the petitioner herein. Challenging the jurisdiction of the first respondent to levy sales tax, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 22175 of 2000 (Jai Jagannath Gases Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh) requesting this court to set aside the circular memo dated May 17, 2000 and to direct the authorities to extend the benefit of tax holiday under the Target-2000 Scheme. The said writ petition was admitted on November 17, 2000 and an interim order was passed directing the respondents not to withdraw the benefit extended to the petitioner under the final eligibility certificate dated June 15, 1999. Thereafter, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Medak issued proceedings dated January 12, 2001 cancelling the final eligibility certificate dated June 15, 1999. Aggrieved by which the petitioner filed W.P. No. 19631 of 2001 (Jai Jagannath Gases Pvt. Ltd. v. Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department). The said writ petition was allowed by order dated September 20, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....W.P. No. 22175 of 2000 dated September 2, 2005 (Jai Jagannath Gases Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh), attained finality. The first respondent issued garnishee notice dated June 28, 2007 to the Punjab National Bank, Patancheru branch for recovery of tax arrears due for the assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 though the petitioners did not have any account in the said bank. The petitioner submitted a representation on July 13, 2007 requesting that no coercive steps be taken. The first respondent issued another notice dated August 22, 2008 demanding payment of arrears of Rs. 31,62,880 for the assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 and, thereafter, issued garnishee notice dated September 6, 2008 to the petitioner's banker i.e., the second respondent. The petitioner would contend that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to recover sales tax as they had not collected the same and, as there was no dispute as to the quantification of the turnover or the sales tax component, there was no necessity or warrant for filing an appeal, that it is a small-scale industry running on a shoe-string budget, that it has not collected tax in view of the condition imposed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch. It is well-settled that all decisions are presumed to be valid until set aside or otherwise held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction. (Judicial Review of Administrative Action, De Smith, Woolf and Jowell, 1995 Edition at pages 259-60). Until its validity is challenged, its legality is preserved. (Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, (Re-issue) Volume 1(1) in para 26, page 31). An order, even if not made in good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity on its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity, and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders. This is equally true even where the brand of invalidity is plainly visible for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining the decision of the court. (Wade and Forsyth: Administrative Law, Seventh Edition, at pages 341-342; Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council [1956] AC 736). It will be a dangerous proposition to be laid down as one of law that any individual or authority can ignore the order a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was under challenge in (Jai Jagannath Gases Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh) W.P. No. 22175 of 2000 wherein the first respondent herein was the third respondent. This court passed an interim order dated November 17, 2000 directing the respondents not to withdraw the final eligibility certificate dated June 15, 1999 whereunder the petitioner was entitled for sales tax holiday for a period of seven years and was prohibited from collecting sales tax from its consumers during this period. The interim order passed by this Court continued to remain in force till (Jai Jagannath Gases Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh) W.P. No. 22175 of 2000 was finally decided by order dated September 2, 2005 following the judgment of the Full Bench in Panchalingal Carbonic Gas Pvt. Ltd. [2005] 141 STC 161; 40 APSTJ 41. It was during the period when the interim order was in force, that the assessment orders for the years 2000-01 and 2001-02 were passed on December 18, 2003 and March 5, 2005, in effect, setting at naught the interim order passed by this court. As he was a party to W.P. No. 22175 of 2000, it was not open to the first respondent herein to act contrary to the interim order passed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AIR 2001 Raj 51). Reference in this regard may be made to Wade and Forsyth on Administrative Law, 9th Edition, page 243, wherein it is stated: "One special variety of estoppel is res judicata. This results from the rule which prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again, even though the determination is demonstrably wrong. Except in proceedings by way of appeal, the parties bound by the judgment are estopped from questioning it. As between one another, they may neither pursue the same cause of action again, nor may they again litigate any issue which was an essential element in the decision. These two aspects are sometimes distinguished as 'cause of action estoppel' and 'issue estoppel'." In The Doctrine of Res Judicata, 2nd Edition, by George Spencer Bower and Turner, it is stated: "A judicial decision is deemed final, when it leaves nothing to be judicially determined or ascertained thereafter, in order to render it effective and capable of execution, and is absolute, complete, and certain, and when it is not lawfully subject to subsequent rescission, review, or modification by the tribunal which pronounced it .....