2013 (4) TMI 23 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Grant of exemption certificate rejected - review application filed twice being rejected - condonation of delay filed - Held that - The conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that the petitioner could have at least challenged the review order also while challenging the main order is strictly in accordance with law and to that extent the order of the Tribunal does not need any interference. An order on merit is always welcome viz. a. Viz. an order on technicalities. It is settled law that all Courts of law and Tribunals are established for furtherance of interest of substantial justice and not to obstruct the same on technicalities. Reference - See Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply 1969 (3) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT wherein held that if substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should not be defeated on technicalities. No procedure in a Court of law should be allowed to defeat the cause of substantial justice on some technicalities. Also see Ghanshyam Dass & Ors. Vs. Dominion of India & Ors (1984 (3) TMI 348 - SUPREME COURT) Therefore this Court feels that it would have been more appropriate for the Tribunal in the facts of the case to afford one opportunity to the petitioner to amend his appeal so as to challenge the order passed on the review application or else to file a separate appeal against the order whereby the review application had been rejected. Thus the petitioner directed to make an amendment application for including the prayer for quashing of the order passed on the review application dated 9th January, 2002 to be filed within three weeks from today along with certified copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of exemption certificate application under Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
2. Review application under Rule 25 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948.
3. Appeal under Section 10 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
4. Principle of merger in review applications.
5. Challenge to orders rejecting exemption application and review application.
6. Wide powers conferred under Rule 25 for review applications.
7. Maintainability of appeal against orders rejecting exemption and review applications.
8. Denial of opportunity of hearing in review application.
9. Necessity to challenge both main order and review order in appeal.
10. Avoidance of conflicting orders on record.
11. Upholding substantial justice over technicalities in legal proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The revisionist-company filed an application for an exemption certificate under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, which was rejected, leading to subsequent review applications and appeals.
2. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing that the original order rejecting the exemption application had merged with the review application order, and both orders needed to be challenged for the appeal to be entertained.
3. The Tribunal's decision was challenged, arguing that the principle of merger does not apply to review applications, relying on legal precedents.
4. The Court noted that while the general principle of merger may not strictly apply to review applications, the power of reconsideration under Rule 25 was broad, allowing for a re-hearing on both factual and legal issues.
5. It was emphasized that the appeal against both the original order and the review application order was maintainable under Section 10 of the Act.
6. The Court found that the review application addressed the denial of an opportunity for a hearing, which was rectified during the review process, rendering the appeal against the original order a formality.
7. The Tribunal's requirement to challenge both the main order and the review order in the appeal was considered necessary to avoid conflicting orders on record.
8. Upholding the Tribunal's decision, the Court emphasized the importance of substantial justice over technicalities in legal proceedings, citing relevant legal precedents.
9. The Court directed the petitioner to amend the appeal to challenge the review application order and proceed with the appeal against both the original and review orders to ensure a fair hearing.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, addressing each point raised in the case while preserving the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text.