JUDGMENT
1. In the garb of a writ petition what in essence is sought herein is the stay of the recovery of long standing sales tax demand for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. This is claimed in the interlocutory stage, whilst as yet the petitioner’s revision against the dismissal of its appeal is admittedly pending disposal before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar.
2. In declining relief at the threshold, it is unnecessary to delve into the facts in detail. Suffice it to mention that the petitioner, M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited, was originally assessed for the Central sales tax for the years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jamshedpur Circle, Jamshedpur, on the 27th of April, 1977, and for the latter two years on the 18th of May, 1977. Subsequently, however, the Additional Assistant Commissioner reopened the assessments aforesaid under Section 18(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. By a single composite order dated 10th of November, 1977, the Additional Assistant Commissioner revised the original assessment and assessed the tax at 12 per cent on certain transactions by holding them to be inter-State sales. The petitioner appealed to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) at Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur, and also sought a stay of the recovery of the alleged balance of taxes demanded. The appellate authority passed a conditional order of stay for the recovery of the balance of taxes. The petitioner thereafter filed three writ petitions in the High Court against the conditional order of stay and after granting interim relief, the High Court stayed the recovery of the balance of tax for all the three years with the condition that the petitioner must pay 20 per cent of the balance of the assessed tax. Apparently, not satisfied with this order of stay, the petitioner preferred special leave petition before their Lordships of the Supreme Court wherein they were pleased to grant unconditional order of stay of the recovery of the balance of tax until the disposal of the appeal only.
3. The appeal aforesaid came up for hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jamshedpur Division, on the 20th of March, 1986. He recorded a detailed order (annexure 5) dismissing the appeal and confirming the revised assessment. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, and further prayed for stay during the pendency of the hearing. The Tribunal admitted the revision petition. Before it, on behalf of the Revenue, its learned counsel stated that the revised assessment for the period 1971-72 may well be barred on the point of limitation. The Tribunal consequently stayed the realisation of the balance of the amount of tax for the year 1971-72. However, as regards the stay for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74, it noticed that earlier on a consideration, their Lordships of the Supreme Court had stayed the recovery only during the disposal of the appeal proceedings. The said appeal having been now decided against the petitioner, the Tribunal found no adequate ground for the stay of tax for the relevant assessment years,
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily highlighted the quantum of tax dues for seeking a somewhat unusual relief that even though the Commercial Taxes Tribunal is in seisin of the revision, this Court in its writ jurisdiction should stay the recovery of the sales tax meanwhile. We are wholly unable to accede to this prayer. The” amount of the long standing tax dues may be considerable but they are in no way grossly disproportionate to the quantum of business and the stature and the financial standing of the petitioner-company. It bears repetition that as yet the merits of the controversy are squarely before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal in revision and for good reason it has declined to stay the recovery. We are unable to find any inherent lack of jurisdiction or an error patent in law for the exercise of this discretion by the Tribunal. It is unnecessary to multiply authority on the recent sea-change in the approach to the grant of stay in fiscal matters in long pending litigations. Reference in this connection is sufficient to AIR 1985 SC 330 (Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd.) and to AIR 1986 SC 662 (Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India). The latter judgment has epitomises the latest reiteration of the principle in the following words (at page 69 of STC) :
59…Large amounts of taxes are involved in these types of litigations. Final disposal of matters unfortunately in the present state of affiairs in our courts takes enormously long time and non-realisation of taxes for long time creates an upsetting effect on industry and economic life causing great inconvenience to ordinary people. Governments are run on public funds and if large amounts all over the country are held up during the pendency of litigations, it becomes difficult for the Governments to run and it becomes oppressive to the people. Governments’ expenditures cannot be made on bank guarantees or securities. In that view of the matter as we said before, if we may venture to suggest for consideration by our learned brethren that this Court should refrain from passing any interim orders staying the realisations of indirect taxes or passing such orders which have the effect of non-realisation of indirect taxes. This will be healthy for the economy of the country and for the courts.
5. In the light of the aforesaid authoritative enunciation, what their Lordships have suggested to their learned brethren is obviously binding and mandatory on the High Courts. We are unable to find any merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed in limine.