Jalan Iron And Steel Company vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the impugned demand-cum-show cause notice dated 02-06-2021 was liable to be set aside. The Court's decision was based on the fact that the petitioner's counsel had produced a copy of the judgment and order dated 12-03-2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2918/2020 and a batch of connected writ petitions, wherein similar notices issued to similarly situated writ petitioners were set aside. The Court noted that this decision had also been upheld by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 162/2021. The respondents' counsel also fairly conceded that the matter was covered by these previous judgments. Consequently, the Court found no reason to deviate from the established precedent. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent of the High Court, similar subsequent cases should be decided in accordance with that precedent. The impugned notice was set aside, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Facts

The writ petitioner, Jalan Iron and Steel Company, filed a writ petition challenging a demand-cum-show cause notice dated 02-06-2021. The notice sought to recover Rs. 11,36,380/- from the petitioner on account of the refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess. The petitioner relied on a judgment dated 12-03-2021 by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2918/2020 and connected petitions, which had set aside similar notices. The petitioner further submitted that this decision was upheld by a Division Bench in W.A. No. 162/2021, rendering the present matter covered by these precedents. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General of India and standing counsel, fairly conceded that the matter was covered by previous judgments and did not object to the petition being disposed of accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 02-06-2021, seeking recovery of Rs. 11,36,380/- towards refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess, is liable to be set aside in light of previous judgments of this Court. (Question of law) Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2918/2020 and batch, dated 12-03-2021, which had set aside similar notices. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that this decision was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 162/2021. Therefore, the writ petition should be disposed of in terms of these binding precedents. Revenue's Argument: The respondents, through their counsel, fairly submitted that the matter was indeed covered by the previous judgments of the Court. They stated they would have no objection if the writ petition was disposed of in line with the aforementioned orders.