M/S.Bata Furniture vs. State Of Orissa

Held

The High Court set aside the order dated 30th July, 2015, passed by the learned Sales Tax Tribunal in the second appeal bearing No. 110(ET) of 2014-15. The Court reasoned that since a similar order of the Tribunal, dated 30th July, 2015, passed under the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004, had been set aside and the matter remanded for fresh hearing, the order in the present case should also be set aside with the same terms. The Tribunal was requested to hear the matter along with the related case and pass appropriate orders. The ratio decidendi is that if a higher court finds an order of a lower appellate authority to be flawed and remands it, similar flawed orders of the same authority, especially when dealing with related matters or on the same date, should also be revisited. The operative direction was to remand the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Bata Furniture, is aggrieved by the dismissal of its second appeal bearing No. 110(ET) of 2014-15, vide an order dated 30th July, 2015, passed by the learned Sales Tax Tribunal. The Petitioner approached the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack under Section 19 of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999, by way of a Sales Tax Revision. The High Court, in a related matter concerning the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004, had set aside an order dated 30th July, 2015, passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh hearing. Consequently, the High Court decided to set aside the second appeal order in the present case with similar terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 30th July, 2015, passed by the learned Sales Tax Tribunal in second appeal bearing No. 110(ET) of 2014-15 is sustainable in law, considering the High Court's decision in a related matter under the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004. Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of its second appeal by the Tribunal, sought revision before the High Court. The Petitioner relied on the High Court's subsequent decision to set aside a similar order of the Tribunal in a related case and sought the same relief. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State of Odisha & Others (Opposite Parties) in this particular revision. However, their role as the opposing party implies a defense of the Tribunal's order.