2015 (4) TMI 700 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of review petition - Held that - The Registrar or his office can raise an objection that the revision is not maintainable and it will be for the assessee or his counsel to satisfy the Registrar that such revision is maintainable. Even if the Registrar holds against the assessee, the assessee will still have the right to claim that it is the Tribunal which should decide this issue and thereafter the Tribunal will have to decide that issue in accordance with law. - Court cannot accept the submission of the Registrar that because the petitions were not maintainable they were returned to the assessee-petitioner. Even if they had to be returned there should have been a noting by some competent authority that they are being returned for some specified reason. The only document which has been produced before us is the receipt and dispatch register which only shows that the revision petitions were returned. There is nothing to show why they were returned. It is by now well settled law that reasons give the strength and body to an order. If there are no reasons in an order then the order becomes an arbitrary order. From the dispatch register, we cannot fathom why the revision petitions were returned. It is not clear who took the decision to return the revision petitions. Therefore, whenever in future, any such order has to be passed even by the Registrar or his subordinates that order must be in writing and must be conveyed to the assessee so that the assessee knows why his appeal or revision is being returned by the Tribunal. - revision petitions which were produced before us in a sealed cover are being returned to Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel with a direction to the petitioners to re-file the same before the Tribunal on or before 9th March, 2015 and if they are so filed before 9th March, 2015, the petitions shall be deemed to have been filed on the date when they were originally filed before the Tribunal.

Issues:
1. Return of appeals without passing any order by the Tripura Value Added Tax Tribunal.
2. Procedure followed by the Tribunal in returning the appeals.
3. Authority of the Tribunal to decide on the maintainability of appeals.
4. Role of the Registrar in determining the maintainability of appeals.
5. Lack of reasons provided for returning the revision petitions.

Issue 1: Return of appeals without passing any order by the Tripura Value Added Tax Tribunal

The petitioner filed two appeals before the Tripura Value Added Tax Tribunal, which were returned without any order being passed. This raised concerns about the judicial proceedings and the necessity for the Tribunal to follow proper procedures. The Tribunal was directed to provide an explanation for returning the appeals and to file an affidavit clarifying the process followed, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal procedures and natural justice principles.

Issue 2: Procedure followed by the Tribunal in returning the appeals

The Tribunal justified the return of the appeals by stating that they were not filed in accordance with the provisions of the TVAT Act, rendering them non-maintainable. However, the Court criticized this approach as being contrary to the rule of law and natural justice. It emphasized that the Tribunal, as the final authority in taxation matters, must act in a legal manner and make decisions on the maintainability of appeals, not the clerical staff. The Tribunal was reminded of its duty to follow legal procedures and provide reasoned decisions for its actions.

Issue 3: Authority of the Tribunal to decide on the maintainability of appeals

The Court clarified that the Tribunal has the authority to determine the maintainability of appeals or revisions before it. However, this decision should be made by the Tribunal itself and not by administrative staff. Even if the Registrar raises concerns about maintainability, the final decision rests with the Tribunal. The Tribunal must assess whether an appeal is maintainable according to the law, and any objections raised by the Registrar should be addressed through a legal process.

Issue 4: Role of the Registrar in determining the maintainability of appeals

The Registrar's contention that the appeals were returned due to being non-maintainable was challenged by the Court. It stressed that the Registrar, as an administrative officer, does not have the authority to decide legal issues regarding the maintainability of appeals. The Court highlighted the importance of providing reasons for decisions, emphasizing that any action taken by the Tribunal, including the return of appeals, must be supported by clear and documented reasons to ensure transparency and fairness in the process.

Issue 5: Lack of reasons provided for returning the revision petitions

The Court noted the absence of reasons for returning the revision petitions, emphasizing the necessity for all judicial or quasi-judicial actions to be based on clear reasons. It highlighted that the lack of reasons could render an order arbitrary and stressed the importance of communicating reasons for decisions to the concerned parties. The Court directed the petitioners to re-file the revision petitions and instructed the Tribunal to act in accordance with the legal principles outlined in the judgment, emphasizing the need for transparency and adherence to legal procedures in all future actions.

← Previous Next →