2008 (8) TMI 867 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rectification application rejected - Held that - From the order sheet, it appears that when the matter was heard on July 14, 2006, the learned counsel for the assessee prayed for some time to file supplementary affidavit to bring on record form EI which was filed before the assessing authority in proceedings under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The matter was listed on various dates before different Benches, but the applicant failed to file the supplementary affidavit, as required by the order dated July 14, 2006. Thus no error in the order of the Tribunal dismissing the rectification application. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification application under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948
2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the authorities below withdrawing the exemption on a specific amount
3. Whether an opportunity ought to have been allowed to file form EI

Analysis:
1. The case involves a revision against the Trade Tax Tribunal's order rejecting a rectification application under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The applicant disclosed subsequent inter-State sales, but failed to file the relevant form EI for a specific transaction amount. The Tribunal dismissed the rectification application, leading to the present revision. The applicant argued that filing forms EI and EII was not essential, which was not raised earlier, and the Tribunal erred in not rectifying the mistake. The Tribunal found no error apparent on the record and rejected the rectification application.

2. The Tribunal upheld the order withdrawing the exemption on the specific amount as the assessing authority had granted exemption on a turnover but later found that form EI had not been filed. The applicant failed to provide evidence of filing form EI despite multiple opportunities, leading to the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the rectification application. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision and stated that the earlier order dismissing the appeal had attained finality, limiting the scope of the present revision to the justification of the Tribunal's order under revision.

3. The applicant also raised the issue of whether an opportunity should have been allowed to file form EI. The High Court noted that the applicant failed to file the supplementary affidavit as required, despite multiple chances to do so. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's dismissal of the rectification application, emphasizing that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier Tribunal order. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision with costs.