9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (9) TMI 596 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the notice under section 21 of the Act was issued before obtaining the approval from the Additional Commissioner and if it is so, what is its effect? Held that - A perusal of the order of the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has not adjudicated issue No. 1 as directed by this court, though the Tribunal has held that the sanction has been granted by the Additional Commissioner on August 23, 2002, but the Tribunal completely failed to record the finding that whether any notice under section 21 of the Act has been issued after the grant of sanction by the Additional Commissioner on August, 23, 2002. The Tribunal has also not considered the effect of the issuance or non-issuance of the notice after the sanction granted by the Additional Commissioner. In view of the above the order of the Tribunal is illegal and liable to be set aside. It is not fair on the part of the Tribunal to ignore or avoid to follow the direction given by this court. If the court gives any direction to the Tribunal it should be strictly followed without any fail. A legal duty is cast on the Tribunal to comply with the direction of the court. The issue No. 1 which was directed to be decided goes to the root of the matter. The question involving jurisdiction and validity of the proceeding under section 21 of the Act ought to have been decided with all seriousness. Revision allowed.
Issues:
1. Validity of the notice issued under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act without obtaining sanction from the Additional Commissioner. 2. Requirement of recording reasons for issuing notice under section 21 of the Act. 3. Effect of non-issuance of notice after sanction granted by the Additional Commissioner. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of Notice Issued Without Sanction The case involved a revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, challenging an order related to the assessment year 1999-2000. The applicant, engaged in the business of cement, contested the initiation of proceedings under section 21 of the Act as being time-barred due to lack of sanction from the Additional Commissioner. The Tribunal failed to consider whether a notice was issued after the grant of sanction, rendering the proceedings illegal. The court held that the Tribunal's omission to address this critical issue necessitated setting aside the order and remanding the matter for a fresh decision. Issue 2: Requirement of Recording Reasons The applicant argued that the notice under section 21 was issued without recording reasons, as mandated by circulars and legal requirements. The court emphasized the importance of recording reasons for initiating proceedings under section 21, as it goes to the root of the matter concerning jurisdiction and validity. Failure to record reasons could invalidate the proceedings, highlighting the need for strict compliance with legal directions and procedures. Issue 3: Effect of Non-Issuance of Notice After Sanction The court directed the Tribunal to determine whether any notice under section 21 was issued after the sanction by the Additional Commissioner. The failure of the Tribunal to address this issue led to the order being deemed illegal and set aside. The court underscored the Tribunal's duty to diligently follow court directives and thoroughly examine crucial issues affecting the validity of proceedings under the Act. The remand was specifically for the Tribunal to decide on the issuance of the notice post-sanction to ensure procedural compliance and legal validity. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of procedural compliance, including obtaining necessary sanctions, recording reasons, and following court directives in proceedings under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The decision underscored the need for meticulous adherence to legal requirements to maintain the integrity and validity of tax assessments and related proceedings.
|
