1979 (8) TMI 200 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a recovery certificate issued by the assessing authority constitutes an order against which an appeal lies under section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Analysis:
The judgment in question dealt with the issue of whether a recovery certificate issued by the assessing authority could be considered an order against which an appeal was permissible under section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The assessment years in question were 1953-54, 1954-55, and 1955-56, with the certificates being issued between 1959-60. The appellate authority initially dismissed the appeals on the basis that recovery certificates were informational and not orders, thus no appeal lay against them. However, the revising authority set aside the orders and remanded the cases to the appellate authority, asserting that recovery certificates were akin to orders of execution and therefore appealable. The revising authority emphasized the importance of allowing appeals against recovery certificates to prevent situations where the assessee would be left without a remedy and subjected to hardship.

The revising authority's reasoning was challenged, with the argument that the fear of recovery certificates being issued without assessment proceedings was unfounded, as the assessee could always seek recourse through Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that the right to appeal was a statutory remedy, not an inherent one, and the provisions of section 9 of the Act needed to be examined to determine the appeal's permissibility. The original section 9 did not include recovery certificates as appealable orders, leading to the conclusion that the appeal was not maintainable. The revising authority's reliance on the amended section 9 was deemed erroneous, as the appeal was not viable even under the amended provision.

Further analysis delved into the definition of "order" within legal contexts, highlighting that a recovery certificate did not meet the criteria of a formal decision or authoritative command, as required for classification as an order. The comparison to execution proceedings was deemed inapplicable, and the form of the order, rather than its effect, was deemed crucial in determining appeal eligibility. Consequently, the appellate authority's stance that no appeal lay against recovery certificates was upheld, leading to the success of the revisions and the setting aside of the Additional Judge's order. The Commissioner, Sales Tax, was awarded costs amounting to Rs. 200, with the petitions being allowed.