Skip to content


The Andhra Cement Company Ltd. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectOther Taxes
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition Nos. 83 and 85 of 1974
Judge
Reported inAIR1976AP84; [1976]37STC602(AP)
AppellantThe Andhra Cement Company Ltd.
RespondentGovernment of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Appellant AdvocateK. Srinivasa Murthy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA. Mahadev, Adv. for ;Government Pleader for Commercial Tax
Excerpt:
.....binding upon commercial tax officer - order of assessment liable to be set aside. - - the assessing authority has failed to follow the judgment of this court in ramakrishna cements macherla v. the supreme court has condemned in no uncertain terms the attitude of the subordinate tribunals or officers in not implementing or giving effect to the decisions of the superior courts or superior authorities. , speaking for the court, observed :where the income-tax officer had virtually refused to carry out the clear and unambiguous directions which a superior tribunal like the income-tax appellate tribunal, had given to him by the final order in exercise of its appellate powers in respect of an order of assessment made by him, such refusal is in effect a denial of justice, and is..........= (1973 tax lr 1823) (andh. pra.) on the ground that that decision has been distinguished by the patna high court in commissioner of commercial taxes, bihar v. ashok marketing ltd., (1973) 32 stc 411 = (1974 tax lr 1874) (pat.) the patna high court, as may be seen from the impugned order of the commercial tax officer, observed :--'the a.p. high court has merely followed the decision of the supreme court in hyderabad asbestos cement case and if i may say so with very great respect without noticing the crucial and vital point of distinction between that case and the kind of case which was being dealt with by the a.p. high court and which falls for consideration before us.'whatever be the view taken by the patna high court on the facts of the case before that court, it is not permissible.....
Judgment:

S. Obul Reddi, C.J.

1. These two writ petitions are directed against the assessment orders of the Commercial Tax Officer, Krishna West I, Vijayawada, dated 10-12-1973 for the two assessment years in question. The assessing authority has failed to follow the Judgment of this court in Ramakrishna Cements Macherla v. Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh (1972) 29 STC 507 = (1973 Tax LR 1823) (Andh. Pra.) on the ground that that decision has been distinguished by the Patna High Court in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar v. Ashok Marketing Ltd., (1973) 32 STC 411 = (1974 Tax LR 1874) (Pat.) The Patna High Court, as may be seen from the impugned order of the Commercial Tax Officer, observed :--

'The A.P. High Court has merely followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Case and if I may say so with very great respect without noticing the crucial and vital point of distinction between that case and the kind of case which was being dealt with by the A.P. High Court and which falls for consideration before us.'

Whatever be the view taken by the Patna High Court on the facts of the case before that Court, it is not permissible to the assessing authority to say that he will not follow the decision of this court for the reason that the Patna High Court had distinguished the judgment of this Court. We have no hesitation in condemning the attitude of the Commercial Tax Officer in not following the decision of this Court which he is bound to. The assessing authority should know that the Patna High Court did not follow the decision of this Court and it came to its own conclusions on the material placed before it. But the Commercial Tax Officer cannot arrogate himself to the position of another High Court and say that he prefers to follow the view expressed by the Patna High Court for the reasons stated by the Patna High Court in its judgment. The Supreme Court has condemned in no uncertain terms the attitude of the subordinate tribunals or officers in not implementing or giving effect to the decisions of the superior Courts or superior authorities. In Bhopal Sugars Industries v. Income-tax Officer, : [1960]40ITR618(SC) S.R. Das, J., speaking for the Court, observed :--

'Where the Income-tax Officer had virtually refused to carry out the clear and unambiguous directions which a superior tribunal like the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, had given to him by the final order in exercise of its appellate powers in respect of an order of assessment made by him, such refusal is in effect a denial of justice, and is furthermore destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice based on it is on the hierarchy of courts.'

2. The Assessing Authority being an inferior tribunal was bound to follow the decision of this court. It is not open to him to prefer the decision of the Patna High Court to the decision of this court.

3. We, therefore, set aside the impugned assessment orders and allow the writ petitions with costs to the extent of the freight charges. Advocate's fee Rs. 100 in each.

4. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //