Skip to content


Seth Ganpat Ram Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory Vs. State of Punjab and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ No. 2826 of 1971
Judge
Reported in[1973]31STC250(P& H)
AppellantSeth Ganpat Ram Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory
RespondentState of Punjab and ors.
Appellant Advocate R.C. Dogra, Adv.
Respondent Advocate S.L. Ahluwalia, Adv. for;Adv. General
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredThe State of Punjab v. Aryavarta Industries
Excerpt:
.....seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order......[1972] 30 s.t.c. 200.2. i, therefore, quash the order dated 18th may, 1971, passed by the assessing authority and remand the case back to it for decision in accordance with law.3. a reading of the order passed by the assessing authority shows that it sat in judgment over a judgment delivered by a learned judge of this court. this conduct on the part of the assessing authority tantamounts to gross violation of judicial discipline and amounts to contempt of court. no subordinate authority is allowed to say that a judgment delivered by the high court is incorrect. let the assessing authority know that such an act if committed in future will be severely dealt with.4. i think these observations are enough to instill respect for binding precedents in the minds of the subordinate.....
Judgment:

M.R. Sharma, J.

1. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the parties that this case is covered by a Bench decision of this court, The State of Punjab v. Aryavarta Industries [1972] 30 S.T.C. 200.

2. I, therefore, quash the order dated 18th May, 1971, passed by the Assessing Authority and remand the case back to it for decision in accordance with law.

3. A reading of the order passed by the Assessing Authority shows that it sat in judgment over a judgment delivered by a learned Judge of this court. This conduct on the part of the Assessing Authority tantamounts to gross violation of judicial discipline and amounts to contempt of court. No subordinate authority is allowed to say that a judgment delivered by the High Court is incorrect. Let the Assessing Authority know that such an Act if committed in future will be severely dealt with.

4. I think these observations are enough to instill respect for binding precedents in the minds of the subordinate Tribunals and courts. After observing this, I feel no necessity of issuing notice for contempt of court against the Assessing Authority.

5. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala, for circulation amongst the Assessing Authorities so that they may be more careful in future.

6. The petition is allowed with no order as to costs.


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