2014 (7) TMI 1141 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision Application Non-Compliance of High Court Rules Whether Tribunal was legally justified to have set aside penalty order whereas applicant was neither registered nor transaction in question was entered in books of account of dealer Held that - If revision was preferred by Revenue, he shall ensure service of revision upon assessee and file affidavit of service in manner prescribed in Rules Therefore, in case of revision filed by Commissioner, affidavit of service must accompany revision, but for valid reasons, this condition would stand dispensed with In current case no such affidavit was filed, meaning thereby there was no notice or opportunity to assesse and revision has not been filed in manner prescribed in Rules Thus, fit case where court must reject revision having not been filed in accordance with rules and for non-compliance of requirement of High Court Rules revision failed Decided against Revenue.

Issues involved:
1. Validity of setting aside penalty order by Trade Tax Tribunal for unregistered applicant with no transaction in books of account.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements for filing revision under U.P. Trade Tax Act.
3. Failure to file affidavit of service and its impact on the validity of the revision.
4. Justification for dismissing a revision filed by the Revenue for non-compliance.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the question of law regarding the Trade Tax Tribunal's decision to set aside a penalty order for an unregistered applicant with no recorded transaction. The revision arose from the Tribunal's order allowing the dealer's appeal for the assessment year 1989-90 under the Central Sales Tax Act.

2. The procedural aspects of filing a revision under the U.P. Trade Tax Act are discussed. The High Court Rules specify the procedure for filing a revision, including the requirement of an affidavit of service. The rules provide guidelines for revisions filed by both the assessee and the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of serving copies and filing necessary affidavits.

3. The judgment highlights the significance of filing an affidavit of service with the revision application. It notes that while an assessee's revision must be accompanied by the affidavit, the Commissioner of Trade Tax can file it within three weeks of the application's institution. Failure to file the affidavit and serve the assessee properly can render the revision invalid.

4. The court emphasizes the importance of compliance with procedural requirements, especially regarding service and filing of necessary documents. In this case, the revision filed by the Revenue in 2007 lacked the required affidavit of service even after several years. The court finds no justification to continue with the revision due to non-compliance, leading to the dismissal of the revision.

5. Additionally, the judgment states that the Tribunal's decision, based on factual findings, was not shown to be erroneous by the learned standing counsel. As no errors of fact or law were demonstrated, the court concludes that the revision must fail, resulting in its dismissal.

6. Ultimately, the court dismisses the revision for non-compliance with procedural rules and lack of justification to continue the case. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the consequences of non-compliance in legal proceedings.

← Previous Next →