TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeals preferred by the petitioners against the orders of assessment are under challenge in the present batch of writ petitions. The details of the assessment and order corresponding to each writ petition are given in the following tabular form: Writ Petitions Notice of demand Impugned order WP (C) 1733/2020 09.10.2015 24.10.2019 WP (C) 1708/2020 09.10.2015 24.10.2019 WP (C) 1732/2020 09.10.2015 24.10.2019 WP (C) 1729/2020 09.10.2015 24.10.2019 3. The common facts which are necessary for proper adjudication of the present writ petitions are recorded herein below:- I. The petitioner Indian Oil Corporation, hereinafter referred as 'the Company', incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 was registered as dealer under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as, Act 1993). The Company has been purchasing various petroleum products from BRPL on payment of Sales Tax as per provisions of the Act, 1993. II. The Union of India at the relevant point of time, constituted Oil Prices Committee and said committee recommended that the dealers are to sale its products at the prices fixed by the Central ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Rules 1993, since the sale price exceeded 40% of the purchase price. VIII. The petitioner company, being aggrieved by such a decision of the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal, preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 6619/2001. IX. Thereafter, during the pendency of the SLP, the authorities passed an ex-parte assessment order and raised demand of Rs. 303.98 crores retrospectively from the year 1994-1995 to 1997-1998. While making such assessment and raising demand, tax was levied on the entire amount collected by the petitioner from its customer without any adjustment of the sales tax paid by the petitioner company to BRPL i.e., on first point of sale under section 8 (1) of the Act, 1993. An amount of Rs. 158.12 crores were levied as interest. X. The Hon'ble Apex court by its judgment dated 27.11.2006 passed in the SLP, set aside the impugned notices as well as the assessment made in the meantime, and remanded the matter to the assessing authority to resolve the factual controversy whether the appellant company had collected sales tax from consumers through various dealers on entire resale price and if ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, refusing to interfere with the determination made. XV. In the meantime, as per the order of the Division bench, fresh assessments were completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes and by order(s) impugned in the present batch of writ petitions levied interest and the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes issued notices of demand, which are also impugned in the present proceeding. XVI. Being aggrieved by such orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, the petitioner filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes (Appeal) Guwahati and Deputy Commissioner of Appeal under its order dated 24.10.2019 dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner by different orders, which are also under challenge in the present batch of writ petitions. XVII. Being aggrieved, the present writ petitions are filed. 4. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned senior counsel assailing the impugned order argues the following: I. The Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, while passing the impugned orders of assessment has gone beyond the direction issued by the Division Bench under i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be made in terms of the determination rendered. III. According to Mr. Gogoi, Sub-Section 3 of Section 22 provides for levy of interest on the shortfall of tax payable for the period prior to assessment. Such shortfall, in tax is to be considered as tax payable for such period and accordingly interest is payable from the due date of payment of such tax till the end of the month prior to such assessment. According to him, after reassessment additional taxes were found to be payable and such taxes were paid after due date and therefore the interest was levied in terms of sub section 3 of section 22 on the tax paid after due date. IV. Accordingly, Mr. Gogoi argues that the interest was levied for delayed payment of tax on the value addition part of BRPL products, which was not paid originally but after due date of payments. He also contends that the petitioner is also aware of such provision and accordingly, paid the interest amount along with the tax due and however subsequently challenged the levy on a wrong notion. V. While concluding his argument Mr. Gogoi submits that the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes and of the Assistant Commissioner of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had collected sales tax from consumers through various dealers on entire resale price and therefore, it is not possible for the Supreme Court to resolve such factual controversy and accordingly, the matter was remitted to the Senior Superintendent of Taxes for ascertaining the fact whether the appellant company had in fact collected sales tax on the entire sales as alleged by the respondents. VI. In the event it is concluded that the company had collected sales tax on the entire sales, then the appellant company would deposit the entire sales tax amount collected from the consumers with the respondent state within four weeks from the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Taxes along with 9% interest from the date of collecting the amount towards the sales tax. 8. The fact also remains that pursuant to such determination, assessment was made and it was found that the petitioner company had not collected any amount by way of sales tax, however, it was held that the company was liable to pay tax on difference between the resale price and the purchase price only and interest @ 24% on the difference amount between the resale price and the purchase price was levied on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal statement/return within time under section 16(3) or if any omission or other error is discovered, the dealer may furnish return or revise the return before the assessment is made subject to accompanying by receipt showing payment of tax due, if any on the basis of such return. 13. The division bench in its judgment and order dated 11.03.2015 passed in WP (C) 1279/2008 and other connected cases, at paragraph 5 dealt with the provisions of Section 22 of the Act and at paragraph 6 laid down a proposition that when earlier assessment orders and demand notice were set aside by the supreme court and after de novo assessment it is found that there is nil demand for the assessment year, the question of payment of interest for the nil demand does not arise. Exactly similar is the case in the present batch of writ petitions. 14. The initial notices were issued in the year 1996 in all the cases including the earlier litigations to produce books of accounts and records in connection with the purchase and sale of their products. Subsequently in the month of March 1996, the petitioner company was asked to show cause as to why penal action should not be initiated. Subsequently, assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are set aside and matter is remanded back and on assessment, no taxable due was found, no interest can be levied. 19. Thus in the aforesaid factual background, this court is of the considered opinion that the determination made by the Division Bench shall be binding upon this court. It is well settled that to maintain certainty, stability and consistency in the legal system, the courts generally abide by the things/issues already decided. Legal principles or rules that have been created by the earlier decision of this court should be respected and followed touching similar legal issues and the same should guide the subsequent decisions. Court must follow decisions made earlier in subsequent cases where the same legal issues are brought before it. 20. In the case of Hari Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1993) 3 SCC 114, it was held that in a judicial system that is administered by court, one of the primary principles to keep note of is that the court under the same jurisdiction must have similar opinions regarding similar questions, issues and circumstances. If opinions given on similar legal issues are inconsistent then instead of achieving harmony in the judicial sys....