2005 (4) TMI 571 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of addition of items in recognition certificate
2. Allegations of forgery and fabrication in the recognition certificate
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act

Analysis:
1. Validity of addition of items in recognition certificate:
The dispute in this case revolves around the addition of five items in the recognition certificate of the dealer. The department alleged that the addition was unauthorized and based on a forged application dated 31st March, 1987. The Tribunal observed that filing an application is mandatory for amending a recognition certificate under Section 4-B of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that since the dealer must have filed the requisite application, there was no forgery or fabrication. The Tribunal also noted the dealer's contention that its statement was recorded before amending the certificate. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order passed under Section 22 of the Act.

2. Allegations of forgery and fabrication in the recognition certificate:
The department contended that the addition of items in the recognition certificate was a result of forgery committed by the dealer. It was argued that the application dated 31st March, 1987, for the addition of items was never presented in the office. The department initiated proceedings to cancel the addition based on this alleged application. The dealer's explanation was deemed unsatisfactory, leading to the cancellation of the amendment in the recognition certificate. However, the Tribunal found that the department failed to produce material showing any departmental enquiry against the erring officer responsible for the unauthorized addition. The Tribunal also expressed helplessness due to the absence of relevant records. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the order based on these grounds.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act:
The High Court, while considering the appeal, examined the jurisdiction under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The learned Standing Counsel argued that the Tribunal had erred in allowing the appeal by disregarding relevant material and twisting facts. The Senior Counsel highlighted the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 11, emphasizing that interference is only permissible if the Tribunal's order is illegal or contrary to law. The High Court acknowledged this principle but noted exceptions when a finding is perverse, against the material on record, or ignores relevant evidence. The Court directed the matter to be remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive examination of all relevant facts and circumstances, including the departmental proceedings against the officer responsible for the alleged forgery.

In conclusion, the High Court partially allowed the revision, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration, stressing the importance of a thorough review of the facts and records by the Tribunal as the last fact-finding authority.