M/S.Hitanshi Sales vs. Sales Tax Officer,Sambalpur I Circle

Held

The Court held that in view of the judgment of the High Court dated 1st December, 2021 in SREV No.64 of 2016 (M/s. Keshab Automobiles v. State of Odisha), which was upheld by the Supreme Court of India by order dated 13th July, 2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9912 of 2022 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Rathi Steel and Power Limited), the impugned notices and orders were liable to be quashed. The Court found that the precedent set by the higher courts was directly applicable to the facts of the present case. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter has been decided by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court, subsequent similar matters should follow the established precedent. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notices and orders. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Hitanshi Sales, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack challenging certain notices and orders. The Opposite Parties were the Sales Tax Officer, Sambalpur-I Circle, and another authority. The specific tax periods and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the writ petition is not detailed, other than the existence of the impugned notices and orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned notices and orders are liable to be quashed in view of the judgment of this Court dated 1st December, 2021 in SREV No.64 of 2016 (M/s. Keshab Automobiles v. State of Odisha)? 2. Whether the said judgment of this Court, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India by order dated 13th July, 2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9912 of 2022 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Rathi Steel and Power Limited), has a binding effect on the present case? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, relied on the judgment of the High Court in M/s. Keshab Automobiles v. State of Odisha, which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court. They argued that the principles laid down in these judgments should apply to their case, leading to the quashing of the impugned notices and orders. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Opposite Parties (Revenue).