1992 (12) TMI 235 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of departmental appeal by Tribunal based on acceptance of consolidated appellate order.
2. Challenge of liability of the firm by revenue before the Tribunal.
3. Justification of dismissal of departmental appeals by Tribunal.
4. Decision of High Court on the matter.

Issue 1: Dismissal of departmental appeal by Tribunal based on acceptance of consolidated appellate order.

The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal on the ground that the revenue failed to show that the consolidated appellate order in a specific case was not accepted. The AAC relied on a decision in the case of Surendra Pratap Jaiswal, and the Tribunal held that without proof of non-acceptance by revenue, the order could not be deemed erroneous. The liability claimed by the assessee was rejected by the WTO, leading to the appeal before the AAC.

Issue 2: Challenge of liability of the firm by revenue before the Tribunal.

The revenue challenged the liability of the firm regarding an agreement with the Government of Rajasthan for liquor lifting. The Tribunal held that the liability, though trading in nature, was not established as the decree favored the firm. The assessee referred the matter to the High Court, leading to a reference back to the Tribunal for further consideration.

Issue 3: Justification of dismissal of departmental appeals by Tribunal.

The High Court opined that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the departmental appeals solely based on the non-challenge of the AAC's decision by the revenue. The Court highlighted that various reasons could exist for not challenging a judgment, and the absence of a valid reason before the Tribunal did not preclude the revenue from contesting the order, especially when the matter was sub judice in the High Court. The reference was answered in favor of the revenue, instructing the Tribunal to rehear the case and issue orders in accordance with the law.

Issue 4: Decision of High Court on the matter.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's dismissal of the departmental appeals was unjustified and directed a fresh hearing, emphasizing that the absence of a challenge by the revenue did not estop them from contesting the order, particularly when the matter was pending in the High Court. The judgment favored the revenue, instructing the Tribunal to reconsider the case without any cost implications.