2015 (6) TMI 267 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of Tribunal s decision - Tribunal refrained from deciding the question on the basis that the ground had not been raised at all - Held that - It was observed that the amended grounds were not on record. There was an inadvertent error. The amended grounds had been furnished to the department. The same were, however, annexed with the proceedings in the appeal filed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 although they ought to have been annexed in the proceedings under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. That was an error on the part of the department of the Tribunal itself. Even if it was not, it would make no difference. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Haryana Tax Tribunal; Refusal to adjudicate grounds raised and pressed; Failure to decide amended ground of appeal; Duty of Tribunal to adjudicate all grounds raised.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the order of the Haryana Tax Tribunal, which disposed of the appellant's appeal against the order of the revisional authority. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's failure to adjudicate the grounds raised and pressed by the appellant. The Tribunal refrained from deciding the issue citing reasons such as lack of elaboration in the grounds of appeal and the amended grounds not being on record.

The High Court noted that it is not necessary for the appellant to provide elaborate reasons in the grounds of appeal as long as the ground is pleaded. The appellant is entitled to raise all contentions in support thereof based on the record before the Appellate Authority. Additionally, the Tribunal's decision to not consider the amended grounds due to them not being on record was deemed erroneous.

It was highlighted that the amended grounds had been furnished to the department but were mistakenly annexed with the proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 instead of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The High Court emphasized that even if this was an error on the part of the department or the Tribunal, it should not affect the appellant's rights.

Consequently, the High Court decided the questions of law in favor of the appellant/assessee. The Tribunal was directed to hear the matter afresh, considering all points, including those raised in the amendment. The appeal was accordingly disposed of, ensuring that all grounds raised by the appellant are duly considered and adjudicated upon by the Tribunal.