1998 JTR(SC) 851
1999 8 SCC 137 ; 2000 117 STC 420 ; 1999 KHC 3940
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. S. Anand, K. T. Thomas, M. Srinivasan
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (JUDICIAL), SALES TAX AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS
Versus
KHERIA BROTHERS AND ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeals Nos. 4210-11 of 1998 (Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 5800-01 of 1996), decided on August 25, 1998.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a relief granted based on a judgment that has been overruled by a higher court is not valid.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Sch.vii List.ii Entry.54
UTTAR PRADESH TRADE TAX ACT : S.29(a)
Judgment - Legal Precedent - The court overruled a previous judgment and held that the relief granted by the lower court based on the overruled judgment was not valid.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions of the respondents were allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court on the premise that relief was due to the petitioners on the basis of a judgment which was later overruled by the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court, and remitted the cases back to it for rehearing of the writ petitions on points other than those which were based on the overruled judgment.
Issues: The issue was whether the relief granted by the lower court based on a judgment that was later overruled by the Supreme Court was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the overruled judgment could not be the basis to grant relief to the respondents by the High Court and therefore set aside the impugned orders.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders of the High Court were set aside, remitting the cases back to it for rehearing of the writ petitions on points other than those which were based on the overruled judgment.
Judgment - Legal Precedent - The court overruled a previous judgment and held that the relief granted by the lower court based on the overruled judgment was not valid.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions of the respondents were allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court on the premise that relief was due to the petitioners on the basis of a judgment which was later overruled by the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court, and remitted the cases back to it for rehearing of the writ petitions on points other than those which were based on the overruled judgment.
Issues: The issue was whether the relief granted by the lower court based on a judgment that was later overruled by the Supreme Court was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the overruled judgment could not be the basis to grant relief to the respondents by the High Court and therefore set aside the impugned orders.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders of the High Court were set aside, remitting the cases back to it for rehearing of the writ petitions on points other than those which were based on the overruled judgment.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The writ petitions of the respondents were allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court on the premise that relief was due to the petitioners on the basis of the judgment reported as State of U.P. v. Annapurna Biscuit Mfg. Co. ((1974) 3 SCC 121 : (1973) 32 STC 1) It transpires that the case of Annapurna Biscuit Mfg. Co. ((1974) 3 SCC 121 : (1973) 32 STC 1) was based upon earlier decisions of this Court in R. Abdul Quader & Co. v. STO ((1964) 15 STC 403 : AIR 1964 SC 922) and Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. State of Bihar ((1970) 1 SCC 354 : (1970) 26 STC 254).
3. While so, in R. S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills Ltd. ((1977) 4 SCC 98 : 1977 SCC (Tax) 536) seven-Judge Bench of this Court overruled Ashoka Marketing Ltd. case ((1970) 1 SCC 354 : (1970) 26 STC 254). The consequent result of such overruling was that Annapurna Biscuit Mfg. Co. decision ((1974) 3 SCC 121 : (1973) 32 STC 1) was based got pro tanto overruled. Later in Kasturi Lal Hartal v. State of U.P. ((1986) 4 SCC 704 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 62 the overruling of Ashoka Marketing case has ((1974) 3 SCC 121 : (1973) 32 STC 1). specifically been noticed but somehow there is no advertence to Annapurna Biscuit Mfg. Co. case ((1974) 3 SCC 121 : (1973) 32 STC 1). This incidence by itself can by no means be allowed to gather the impression that Annapurna Biscuit Mfg. Co. case ((1974) 3 SCC 121 : (1973) 32 STC 1) was still surviving. That case, as said before, stands pro tanto overruled. It could not have been the basis to grant relief to the respondents by the High Court.
4. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court remitting the cases back to it for rehearing of the writ petitions on points other than those which were based on Annapurna Biscuit Mfg. Co. case ((1974) 3 SCC 121 : (1973) 32 STC 1). Ordered accordingly. No costs.