2006 (8) TMI 571 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against Tribunal's order for assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01.
- Ex parte assessment orders by assessing authority due to non-appearance and failure to produce necessary documents by the applicant.
- Appeals filed by the applicant before Joint Commissioner (Appeals) against ex parte orders.
- Remand of the matter back to the assessing authority by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals).
- Appeals filed before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad against the orders of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals).
- Consideration of new information by the Tribunal during the pendency of the appeals.
- Interpretation of Section 9(3)(a)(iv) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
- Justification of remand of the case by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The applicant, a registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, was involved in the buying and selling of PVC pipes and pipe fittings. The assessing authority issued notices for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, but the applicant failed to provide necessary information, leading to ex parte orders estimating taxable turnover. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) set aside these orders and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for fresh assessment, considering the applicant's plea regarding lack of proper opportunity. The applicant then filed appeals before the Trade Tax Tribunal, which dismissed the appeals, justifying the remand by the first appellate authority.

The Tribunal considered new information received during the appeals process, prompting the applicant to challenge the decision. The applicant argued that once a report is sought under Section 9(3)(a)(iv) of the Act, the appellate authority cannot remand the case, but this argument was dismissed. The High Court analyzed the relevant section and concluded that the appellate authority has the power to set aside the order and remand the case, even without the submission of the report. The Court found no error in the orders passed by the appellate authority and upheld the Tribunal's decision to remand the case to provide the applicant with an opportunity to explain the new information.

The Court emphasized that the applicant failed to appear before the assessing authority, provide necessary documentation, and prove that purchases were made within the State of U.P. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the applicant's grievance regarding lack of proper opportunity and directed a fresh assessment. The Court supported the Tribunal's decision to consider the new information and the remand of the case for a fair hearing. Consequently, both revisions were dismissed, and the applicant was directed to cooperate in the assessment proceedings without the issuance of a fresh notice.