2009 (11) TMI 831 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of the book version and enhancement of the net turnover of the revisionist - Held that - From a perusal of the order which is under challenge, it is crystal clear that the Tribunal being the last fact finding authorities while deciding the appeal ought to have given its finding on all the grounds which has been taken by the revisionist before the Tribunal in its appeal but in the instant case in a very casual manner by way of non-speaking order without deciding and adjudicating all the grounds taken in appeal the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal by order dated June 21, 2003 as such the said order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. For the foregoing reasons, the revision is allowed, the order dated June 21, 2003 passed by Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench II, Lucknow in Second Appeal No. 108 of 1999 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench II, Lucknow to decide the same in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned, expeditiously, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Issues:
1. Unreasoned and cryptic order passed by the Tribunal.
2. Failure of the Tribunal to consider all grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal.
3. Compliance of the Tribunal with the mandate of law.
4. Setting aside the order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
1. The revision was filed under section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal. The revisionist contended that the Tribunal's order was unreasoned and cryptic, not meeting the requirements of sub-rule (5) of rule 68 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948. The Tribunal, being the last fact-finding authority, was obligated to consider and decide all grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. The court cited precedents emphasizing the necessity for the Tribunal to address all grounds in the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal's failure to provide a reasoned order necessitated setting aside the order.

2. It was argued that the Tribunal did not address all the grounds raised by the revisionist in the memorandum of appeal. The court reiterated that the Tribunal must consider all grounds mentioned in the appeal memorandum and provide findings on each ground. Precedents were cited to emphasize the importance of the Tribunal's compliance with the mandate of law in addressing all grounds raised in the appeal. The failure of the Tribunal to adjudicate on all grounds led to the order being set aside, highlighting the significance of thorough consideration of all grounds in the appeal.

3. The court emphasized the necessity for the Tribunal to comply with the mandate of law by considering and deciding on all grounds raised in the appeal memorandum. Citing previous judgments, the court reiterated that the Tribunal must provide findings on all grounds mentioned in the appeal, failing which the order could be set aside. The court's decision to remand the matter for fresh consideration underscored the importance of the Tribunal's compliance with legal requirements in addressing all grounds raised in the appeal.

4. Ultimately, the court allowed the revision, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The Tribunal was directed to decide the case in accordance with the law after hearing the concerned parties within a specified timeframe. The court clarified that its decision to remand the matter did not constitute an adjudication on the revisionist's claim on merits, emphasizing the procedural aspect of addressing all grounds raised in the appeal.

← Previous Next →