1996 (1) TMI 407 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Filing/admission of petition/application under section 8 of the 1995 Act in the absence of the impugned order.
2. Entertaining the petition/application by the Tribunal under its extraordinary jurisdiction as per section 8 of the 1995 Act.
3. Tribunal's power to consider disputed questions of fact.
4. Tribunal's jurisdiction over matters arising under the 1956 Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Point No. 1:
The Tribunal addressed whether a petition/application can be filed or admitted without the impugned order. The applicant-firm initially did not file the impugned orders dated September 18, 1995, along with the writ petition. The Tribunal noted that section 8(1) of the 1995 Act allows a person aggrieved by an order or action to make an application for redressal. It emphasized that law should not operate in a realm of technicalities and that procedural lapses should not deprive an individual of justice. The Tribunal allowed the amendment application filed by the applicant-firm to include the impugned orders, thus permitting the application to proceed.

Point No. 2:
The Tribunal examined whether it could entertain the petition/application under its extraordinary jurisdiction. The respondents argued that the applicant-firm should have filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as provided under section 84 of the 1994 Act. Section 8(3) of the 1995 Act stipulates that the Tribunal should not "ordinarily" admit an application unless specific conditions are met. The Tribunal found that the applicant-firm had not availed the alternative remedy of appeal, which was effective and adequate. There was no substantial question of law or undue hardship demonstrated. Consequently, the Tribunal decided that the extraordinary jurisdiction could not be invoked, and the applicant-firm should pursue the alternative remedy.

Point No. 3:
The Tribunal considered whether it could adjudicate disputed questions of fact. It concluded that such questions should be addressed by the assessing or appellate authority, not the Tribunal. The Tribunal's extraordinary jurisdiction is limited and should not extend to factual determinations that are better suited for other authorities.

Point No. 4:
The Tribunal discussed whether it had jurisdiction over matters arising under the 1956 Act. Given that both impugned orders (under the 1954 Act and the 1956 Act) could be challenged before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal found it unnecessary to decide on its jurisdiction over the 1956 Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the applicant-firm should utilize the available appellate remedy.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal refused to admit the petition/application under its extraordinary jurisdiction as per section 8 of the 1995 Act. The applicant-firm was advised to approach the appropriate forum for remedy. Consequently, the stay application also fell through, and the application was dismissed.