TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1474
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat certain goods being transported by the respondents were apprehended by a mobile squad on 19 May 2016. The goods were seized on 25 May 2016. Against the order of seizure, the respondents approached the Joint Commissioner, who passed the order dated 17 June 2016. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was taken to the Tribunal. A Bench of the Tribunal allowed this appeal on 22 June 2016 commanding the release of goods without any security. After passing of this order, the revisionist moved an application purported to be under Section 31 of the VAT Act. The sole ground which was taken in the application was that the departmental representative was not heard before the passing of the order dated 22 June 2016. This application has been rejec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to reject the application for recall. Pursuant to certain submissions which were advanced on this revision, the records of the two appeals which were decided by the Tribunal on the said date had also been summoned and have been perused. The records which had been placed before the Court in sealed cover was opened, shown to the learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties and duly perused by them. Sri Pandey, learned Standing Counsel referring to the record submits that as is evident from the order sheet of 20 June 2016 and 22 June 2016, no endorsement of the departmental representative was obtained. In view thereof, it was his submission that the contention urged before the Tribunal did raise certain issues of import. According ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t would be well advised to bear in mind the following observations as made by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak (2 (1982) 2 SCC 463 ): "4. When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney General to the concession made before the High Court, Shri A.K. Sen, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay before us intervened and protested that he never made any such concession and invited us to peruse the written submissions made by him in the High Court. We are afraid that we cannot launch into an enquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public policy bars us. Judicial decorum ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may resile and an appellate court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment. 5. In R v. Mellor [(1858) 7 Cox CC 454 : 6 WR 322 : 169 ER 1084] Martin, B. was reported to have said: "We must consider the statement of the learned Judge as absolute verity and we ought to take his statement precisely as a record and act on it in the same manner as on a record of Court which of itself implies an absolute verity." 6. In KingEmperor v.Barendra Kumar Ghose [AIR 1924 Cal 257 : 28 Cal WN 170 : 38 Cal LJ 411 : 2....