2017 (5) TMI 1277 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Interim relief - recovery of dues - Inter-state sale - Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act - Specific bar contained in Section 7 of the U.P. VAT Act - Held that - merely on account of pendency of a revision against it before this Court at the behest of the State the said aspect has been ignored and a contrary view has been taken giving protection only to the extent of 80% of the due amount. This in the view of this Court is not correct approach, consistency in such matters especially when the Bench in respect of the same assessee granted the relief in respect of an earlier assessment year on merits should have been maintained, if not, cogent reasons should have been given which do not exist in this case. Revision allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of prima facie case and legal provisions in tax matter
2. Justification of relief granted by the Tribunal based on previous decisions

Analysis:
1. The first issue before the High Court was whether the Tribunal should have considered the strong prima facie case in favor of the Revisionist due to the inter-State nature of the transaction, relevant tax laws, and specific legal provisions. The Court noted that the revisionist had a pending first appeal before the Appellate Authority, but had sought interim relief. The Tribunal had initially granted 65% interim relief, which was later increased to 80%. The revisionist contended that the Tribunal did not consider the parameters for interim relief as laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court. The Court found that the Tribunal had failed to consider crucial parameters and had not taken into account the previous judgment in favor of the revisionist, leading to an incorrect approach. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and restored the Second Appeal of the revisionists for a fresh decision by the Tribunal within six weeks.

2. The second issue involved the justification of the relief granted by the Tribunal based on previous decisions. The revisionist argued that the Tribunal consistently decided against them based on outdated judgments, despite subsequent decisions by higher courts favoring the revisionist. The Court observed that the Tribunal had ignored relevant judgments and had not maintained consistency in its decisions. It emphasized the importance of providing cogent reasons for deviating from previous decisions. As a result, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter independently, taking into account the observations made in the judgment.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revision in favor of the revisionists, quashed the impugned order, and directed the Tribunal to re-examine the matter in light of the legal principles and observations provided in the judgment. The Court emphasized the importance of considering relevant legal provisions, previous judgments, and maintaining consistency in decision-making in tax matters.