2014 (5) TMI 874 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Procedure for revision - procedure for filing revision is prescribed in Chapter 27 of the High Court Rules - Service of notice - Held that - affidavit of service has to accompany revision application, but proviso to sub Rule 2 provides, that, if due to lack of time or for any other sufficient reason, affidavit of service is not accompanying the application filed by Commissioner of Trade Tax, such affidavit must be filed within three weeks of the date of institution of application. Therefore, a revision would be treated to be validly filed by an assessee if it is accompanied by affidavit of service, but in case of revision filed by Commissioner of Trade Tax, affidavit of service must accompany revision, but for valid reasons, this condition would stand dispensed with, but, the affidavit of service then, must be filed within three weeks of the date of institution of - In case no such affidavit is filed and the assessee is not served by Commissioner of Trade Tax, meaning thereby there is no notice or opportunity to the assessee and revision has not been filed in the manner prescribed in the Rules. This revision was filed in 2005 and till date affidavit of service has not been filed. In my view it is fit case where this Court must reject revision having not been filed in accordance with rules and for non-compliance of requirement of Chapter 27 Rule 5(2) of High Court Rules - Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Procedure for filing revision under U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
2. Requirement of affidavit of service for revision applications.
3. Consequences of non-compliance with procedural requirements.
4. Justification for rejecting a revision application.

Analysis:
1. The judgment discusses the procedure for filing a revision under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, as per Chapter 27 of the High Court Rules. It highlights that the rules in Chapter 27, specifically Rule 5, require an affidavit of service to be filed along with the revision application. The rules also mention that certain provisions of the rules apply to proceedings under other tax acts, including the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

2. The judgment emphasizes the importance of the affidavit of service, stating that if the revision is filed by the assessee, they must serve a copy on the Learned Standing Counsel and file an affidavit of service. Similarly, if the revision is filed by the Revenue, the Commissioner of Trade Tax must ensure service on the assessee and file the affidavit of service. The absence of this affidavit can lead to non-compliance with the procedural requirements.

3. The judgment delves into the consequences of non-compliance with the procedural requirements, particularly focusing on the lack of an affidavit of service. It notes that if the Commissioner of Trade Tax fails to serve the assessee and does not file the required affidavit of service within three weeks of the application's institution, it may result in the revision not being filed in accordance with the rules.

4. Lastly, the judgment provides justification for rejecting a revision application due to non-compliance with the rules. It mentions a specific case where a revision was filed in 2005, yet the affidavit of service had not been filed till the date of the judgment. The court finds no reason to continue with the revision after such a long period of non-compliance and lack of service to the assessee. Additionally, the judgment highlights that even after considering the arguments presented by the Learned Standing Counsel, no errors of fact or law were found in the appellate authority's decision, leading to the dismissal of the revision.

In conclusion, the judgment dismisses the revision application due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements, specifically the absence of the affidavit of service. It underscores the importance of adhering to the rules and justifies the rejection based on the lack of service and failure to demonstrate any errors in the appellate authority's decision.

← Previous Next →