The Commercial Tax Officer, Bengaluru and Others vs IFB Industries Limited

Jayant M. Patel, J.—1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 12380/2014 and W.P. Nos. 16018-16028/2014, whereby the learned Single Judge has for the reasons recorded in the order allowed the writ petitions and has further directed the respondent-authority to give effect to the directions of the Tribunal for the period 2006-2007 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

We have heard Sri K.M. Shivayogiswamy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellant.

The contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that after the Tribunal decided the matter in case of the original petitioner, this Court had taken a different view, resultantly the rectification order was passed for assessment. It was submitted that such could be made permissible if the higher forum had taken a different view. However, the learned Counsel fairly conceded that the order of the Tribunal on the face of which the direction was issued by the learned Single Judge has not been carried by the Department before the higher forum. He submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have relegated the original petitioner to the remedy of appeal instead of entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence, the matter deserves consideration.

It is hardly required to be stated that once there is a bipartite decision of the competent Court or a forum or a Tribunal, it binds the parties to the proceedings.

If any party to the proceedings or party to the decision is permitted to reopen the issue which stood concluded by the earlier decision on a mere ground that subsequently legal position is altered, not only the sanctity of the order would be lost but it would resultant to opening a pandora box. Such is neither conceived nor can be permitted in the system of administration of justice. Once a decision has attained finality, it cannot be upset just on a mere ground that subsequently the higher forum has taken a different view.

If the matter is examined in the light of the above referred legal position, it is an admitted fact that the order of the Tribunal on the basis of which the direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge is not carried before the higher forum, meaning thereby the Department accepted the decision of the Tribunal. Once the Department having accepted the decision of the Tribunal, it would not be open to the Officer of the Department to re-open the issue may be under the guise of rectification or otherwise.

The learned Single Judge has gone by the correct principle and if we consider the above referred reasons with the reasons already recorded by the learned Single Judge, we do not find that any case is made out for interference.

Hence the appeal is meritless and therefore dismissed. Interim applications would not survive since the appeal is disposed of.