2020 (11) TMI 793 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - proper service of SCN - Issue was not proceeded to be decided on merits - HELD THAT - A bare perusal of the order impugned in the present revision reveals that the revisionist has not been heard by the Tribunal while passing the order dated 3.3.2020 and in view of the fact that the service was not effected properly on the revisionist, the order dated 3.3.2020 is set aside. The revisions are allowed in favour of the Assessee and against the Department.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority without providing reasons?
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in proceeding to decide the case without proper service of notice as required by law?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The revisionist, a registered company engaged in manufacturing M.S. Steel Tubes, had closed its business and rented the premises to another entity. Assessment proceedings for the year 2005-06 were initiated by the Assessing Authority, leading to an assessment order dated 9.3.2009. The revisionist then appealed the order before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals)-1, Commercial Tax NOIDA. The appeals were decided by a common order dated 31.7.2009, partially allowing the appeals and reducing the demands. The revisionist did not appeal this order, but the opposite party did. The counsel for the revisionist argued that the appellate order lacked reasons for allowing the appeal and that proper notice was not served as per Rule 77. The High Court found that the revisionist was not heard by the Tribunal, and the order dated 3.3.2020 was set aside due to improper service on the revisionist.

Issue 2:
The service of notice for the appeal filed by the respondents before the Tribunal was served on the tenant, not on the revisionist, contrary to Rule 77. The counsel for the revisionist contended that the service was not in accordance with the rules and that the appellate order did not address the merits of the case. The High Court agreed that the service was not properly effected on the revisionist, leading to the order dated 3.3.2020 being set aside. The revisions were allowed in favor of the Assessee, directing the Tribunal to decide the appeals afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist in accordance with the law. The revisionist was instructed to appear before the Tribunal on a specified date to expedite the process.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues of improper service of notice and the lack of reasons in the appellate order, ultimately setting aside the order dated 3.3.2020 and directing a fresh hearing by the Tribunal to ensure the revisionist's right to be heard and the proper application of the law.