Page 49 - GSTL_20th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 3

2020 ] SARATHY MOTORS v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-III (ASSESSMENT), KOLLAM 263
6. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee supported the order of the
Learned Tribunal and urged before us that since the controversy is covered by
the earlier judgments of Division Bench of this Court, there is no reason to take a
different view of the matter and the present appeal filed by the Revenue has no
merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, and upon perusal
of the order passed by the Learned Tribunal, we are of the clear opinion that
there is no merit in the present appeal filed by the Revenue Department and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
8. The relevant rules, notifications and earlier judgments of the Coordi-
nate Bench having been considered while allowing the appeal filed by the As-
sessee, the Learned Tribunal held that refund claimed by the Assessee on Cenvat
credit cannot be disallowed merely because the premises in question was not
registered with the Revenue Department. It is brought to our notice that the As-
sessee had applied for such registration and the same was granted by the De-
partment on 1-6-2009 and the present controversy pertains to the period prior to
1-6-2009, the date of grant of registration.
1 8. We cannot appreciate the contention of the Revenue that merely be-
cause the Department has not accepted the earlier Division Bench judgments of
this Court, and without filing any appeal in an appropriate manner, the present
appeal on the same ground cannot be entertained. The Revenue Department is
bound by the judgments of this Court unless they are set aside by higher Courts
in appropriate proceedings. It is also not the case of the Department that any
subsequent amendment in law has changed the legal position and therefore the
earlier judgments cannot be followed by this Bench.
9. In view of this, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the
contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellant Revenue and we do
not find any question of law to be arising in the present appeal filed by the Reve-
nue and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
There is no order as to costs.

_______

2020 (39) G.S.T.L. 263 (Ker.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Amit Rawal, J.
SARATHY MOTORS

Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-III (ASSESSMENT), KOLLAM
W.P. (C) No. 11200 of 2020 (Y), decided on 17-6-2020
Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative remedy - Opportunity to be heard given
to petitioner by Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Manager of petitioner hav-
ing appeared and argued the matter before him - However, no such assertion

________________________________________________________________________
1 Paragraph number as per official text.
GST LAW TIMES  20th August 2020  49