2010 (1) TMI 1143 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Tax liability increased by tribunal - Held that - While exercising the jurisdiction under section 11 of the Trade Tax Act this court has got a very limited jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, i.e., only when the question of law arises as in the present case there is no question of law whatsoever arises and only question of fact is involved from the order passed by the Tribunal, which is under challenge. Hence no interference is required in the Tribunal s order.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment based on estimation, Jurisdiction of High Court under section 11 of Trade Tax Act, Limited interference in Tribunal's order.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the assessment of a registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for the assessment year 1986-87. The assessing authority initially conducted a survey and issued notices to the assessee. Subsequently, the assessment was completed, and a tax liability was determined. The assessee appealed the order, which was partly allowed by the first appellate authority, reducing the tax amount. Further appeals were filed by both the assessee and the review authority before the U.P. Trade Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed one appeal and partly allowed the other, increasing the tax liability. Subsequently, the revisionist approached the High Court under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, challenging the Tribunal's order.

The High Court noted that the assessment orders by the authorities were based on estimation, and the subsequent appellate orders were also estimation-based. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that estimation is a question of fact, not a question of law. The court highlighted that its jurisdiction under section 11 of the Trade Tax Act is limited to interference only when a question of law arises, not for questions of fact. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the High Court reiterated the principle that it can only interfere if a precise question of law is involved, not to reevaluate factual evidence.

Based on the legal principles and precedents, the High Court concluded that as no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order and only a question of fact was involved, there was no basis for interference in the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the High Court found the revision lacked merits and dismissed it. The court also mentioned that no costs were awarded in the matter.

In summary, the High Court's judgment emphasized the distinction between questions of fact and questions of law in matters of assessment based on estimation. It clarified the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under section 11 of the Trade Tax Act to interfere only when a question of law is at issue. The court's decision was guided by legal principles and precedents, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the revision filed by the assessee.