1998 (11) TMI 657 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the assessing officer to rectify assessment orders under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
2. Taxability of turnover in a works contract.
3. Legality of the Sales Tax Tribunal's decision in allowing the appeal without the dealer's appearance or record submission.

Analysis:
1. The revision petitions under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act challenged a common order by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Dehradun, regarding tax levied on the dealer for Assessment Years 1979-80 and 1980-81. The assessing officer had recalled the assessment orders based on a mistake, which was later challenged by the Dy. Commissioner. The Tribunal concluded that the assessing officer exceeded jurisdiction by reviewing his own orders, leading to the quashing of the tax levied by the Dy. Commissioner.

2. The Tribunal determined that the works contract in question was indivisible, indicating non-taxable turnover. Despite the dealer's appeal being against orders under Section 10-B, the Tribunal delved into the assessment's merits, setting aside the tax levied by the Dy. Commissioner. This approach was criticized as negligent, as the Tribunal overstepped its mandate by examining the merits not under appeal.

3. The Commissioner contended that the Tribunal's decision was unsustainable, as it allowed the appeal without the dealer's presence or record submission. The Commissioner raised the question of the Tribunal's legality in allowing the appeal despite acknowledging the assessing officer's lack of power to review under Section 22 of the Act. The Commissioner's revision petitions were allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's order and directing it to pass suitable orders in accordance with the judgment.

In conclusion, the judgment dealt with issues of jurisdiction, taxability in works contracts, and the legality of the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal's overreach in examining the merits not under appeal and the assessing officer's jurisdiction to rectify assessment orders were central to the decision, leading to the setting aside of the Tribunal's order and a directive for further proceedings in line with the judgment.