- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ram Dass Rice & General Mills v. State Of Punjab And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner filed a rectification application under section 21-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, which was rejected by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal denied rectification on the sole ground that a subsequent judgment of the constitutional courts, rendered after the Tribunal's decision, did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record warranting a fresh order. The Tribunal relied on earlier Madras High Court judgments in State of Tamil Nadu v. Meenambal and Co. and State of Tamil Nadu v. Everest Trading Co. The petitioner sought rectification of the Tribunal’s earlier order dated December 20, 1992, relying on later judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court, which were not considered by the Tribunal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court or constitutional courts, rendered after the original decision, can be considered a mistake apparent from the record, thereby justifying rectification or review of that decision.
- Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in refusing to entertain the rectification application on the ground that subsequent judgments do not warrant fresh orders.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner relied on authoritative judgments, including the Supreme Court decision in State of Kerala v. P.K Syed Akbar Sahib, which held that a review can be entertained on the basis of a subsequent Supreme Court judgment.
- Additional reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vijaya Wines v. State of Andhra Pradesh supporting the principle that subsequent Supreme Court rulings can justify review or rectification.
- The petitioner cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Hero Cycles Limited v. State of Punjab, which held that failure to take note of subsequent Supreme Court judgments amounts to a mistake apparent from the record requiring fresh orders.
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents were unable to produce any judgment contradicting the petitioner's position.
- The respondents implicitly supported the Tribunal's view that subsequent constitutional court judgments do not constitute a mistake apparent from the record.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Tamil Nadu v. Meenambal and Co. [1984] 56 STC 82 (Mad) | Used by Tribunal to deny rectification on the ground that subsequent judgments do not constitute a mistake apparent from record. | The Court found reliance on this precedent by the Tribunal to be misplaced and unreasonable. |
| State of Tamil Nadu v. Everest Trading Co. [1987] 67 STC 148 (Mad) | Same as above, supporting Tribunal’s refusal to rectify. | Rejected by the Court as inconsistent with Supreme Court authority. |
| Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1976] 38 STC 593 (SC) | Supporting rectification based on subsequent judicial pronouncements. | Relied upon by petitioner to justify rectification. |
| Jainson Hosiery Industries v. Assessing Authority [1991] 83 STC 26 (P&H) | Supporting rectification of orders based on later judgments. | Relied upon by petitioner for rectification. |
| Jain Motor Company (Pb.) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab [1992] 84 STC 177 (P&H) | Supporting rectification of Tribunal orders in light of subsequent judgments. | Relied upon by petitioner for rectification. |
| State of Kerala v. P.K Syed Akbar Sahib [1988] 70 STC 191 : [1988] 173 ITR 1 (SC) | Held that review can be entertained on the basis of a subsequent Supreme Court judgment. | Formed the cornerstone of the Court’s reasoning to set aside the Tribunal’s order and allow rectification. |
| Vijaya Wines v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1978] 42 STC 329 (SC) | Supported the principle that subsequent Supreme Court decisions justify review or rectification. | Supported the Court’s conclusion favoring rectification. |
| Hero Cycles Limited v. State of Punjab C.W.P No. 6751 of 1993 (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 1995) | Held that failure to consider subsequent Supreme Court judgments is a mistake apparent from the record requiring fresh orders. | Directly applied by the Court to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the Tribunal’s refusal to rectify its order on the ground that subsequent constitutional court judgments do not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The Court referred to binding Supreme Court precedents, particularly State of Kerala v. P.K Syed Akbar Sahib, which held that a review or rectification can be entertained when a subsequent Supreme Court judgment contradicts the earlier decision. The Court also cited Vijaya Wines and the Division Bench judgment in Hero Cycles Limited, which emphasized that ignoring subsequent Supreme Court rulings amounts to a mistake apparent from the record that must be corrected. The Court found the Tribunal's reliance on Madras High Court decisions unreasonable and contrary to public policy, emphasizing that no citizen can be deprived of the benefits of settled Supreme Court law on technical grounds. Consequently, the Court concluded that the Tribunal’s order was contrary to law and liable to be set aside.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is allowed.
The Court set aside the impugned order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and remanded the case back with a direction to pass fresh and appropriate orders in accordance with the law and the Supreme Court judgments relied upon by the petitioner. The Tribunal is required to give notice to the parties before passing such orders. The decision directly affects the parties by ensuring the petitioner’s right to benefit from subsequent Supreme Court rulings is recognized. No new precedent was established beyond reaffirming existing Supreme Court principles regarding rectification and review based on subsequent judgments.
1. Rectification application filed by the petitioner under section 21-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal solely on the ground that subsequent judgment of the constitutional courts after the decision of the Tribunal was not a mistake apparent from the record requiring passing of a fresh order. The Tribunal was persuaded to take such a view on the basis of the judgments in [1984] 56 STC 82 (Mad.) (State of Tamil Nadu v. Meenambal and Co.) and [1987] 67 STC 148 (Mad.) (State of Tamil Nadu v. Everest Trading Co.).
2. The petitioner herein had relied upon the judgments reported in [1976] 38 STC 593 (SC) [Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (Coal Sales) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh], [1991] 83 STC 26 (P&H) (Jainson Hosiery Industries v. Assessing Authority) and [1992] 84 STC 177 (P&H) [Jain Motor Company (Pb.) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab] for the purposes of rectification of the earlier order of the Tribunal passed on December 20, 1992.
3. The Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. P.K Syed Akbar Sahib [1988] 70 STC 191 : [1988] 173 ITR 1 had dealt with the points raised before us and held that review could be entertained on the basis of a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court. In that case, the High Court declined to review its earlier judgment on the basis of subsequent judgment to the contrary. The facts of the case were that the High Court had earlier ordered refund of licence fee collected under the relevant Act. The Supreme Court subsequently upheld the vires of the Act challenged before the High Court and the State on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment filed a petition before the High Court seeking review of its earlier judgment ordering refund. Upon dismissal of the review petition by the High Court, the Supreme Court held:
“……………The High Court has taken the view that the review was not competent. Having considered the judgment rendered by the High Court, we are of the view that in the background of the aforesaid facts, the High Court was not justified in refusing to entertain the review petition on super-technical considerations which were ill-founded. The High Court was in error in taking the view that the review petition was not maintainable notwithstanding the fact that the validity of the Act had been subsequently upheld by the court whereas the judgment sought to be reviewed was based on the premise that the Validation Act was ultra vires In our considered opinion the High Court should have entertained the application for review……………”
4. To the same effect is another judgment of the apex Court in Vijaya Wines v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1978] 42 STC 329 (sic).
5. A Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P No. 6751 of 1993 decided on February 16, 1995* Hero Cycles Limited v. State of Punjab held:
“………we are of the opinion that the Tribunal should have taken note of the abovesaid judgment while deciding the application for rectification of the mistake. As the Supreme Court has already held that its subsequent judgment, if not taken note of, would be deemed to be a mistake apparent from the record, the Tribunal had no option but to pass orders afresh, by taking into account the latest law settled by the Supreme Court.”
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have not been in a position to show us any other judgment to the contrary. Otherwise also the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be unreasonable besides being against the public policy. No person can be deprived of his right merely on the ground of technicalities. As the judgment of the Supreme Court is a law settled for the country, no citizen could be deprived of its benefits. The judgment impugned in the writ petition is, therefore, held to be against the provisions of law and is liable to be set aside.
7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order impugned and remanding the case back to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal with a direction to pass afresh appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of law and the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to and relied upon by the petitioner. Appropriate orders shall be passed after notice to the parties.
8. Writ petition allowed.
Alert