2018 (3) TMI 1474 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Release of seized goods - dismissal of revision application - Held that - this Court is of the considered view that no proceedings for rectification as envisaged and recognised in law was adopted by the Department. If applications for rectification came to be made in the manner as evidenced by the facts of this case and were to be entertained and countenanced, it would give rise to pernicious possibilities - The course adopted by the respondents cannot possibly be approved by the Court since the application itself appears to have been made without due care and circumspection as was warranted. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order under Section 31 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act 2008 (VAT Act) based on non-hearing of departmental representative.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background of the Case:
- The case involves two revisions questioning an order of the Tribunal dated 5 July 2017 dismissing applications made by the Department under Section 31 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act 2008 (VAT Act).
- The goods transported by the respondents were seized on 25 May 2016, and subsequent legal actions were taken by both parties leading to the Tribunal's order.

2. Allegations and Proceedings:
- The revisionist moved an application under Section 31 of the VAT Act, claiming that the departmental representative was not heard before the Tribunal's order dated 22 June 2016.
- The Joint Commissioner made serious allegations against the Tribunal, stating the departmental representative was not heard during the proceedings.

3. Court's Examination of Evidence:
- The Court examined the records of the appeals decided by the Tribunal and noted discrepancies in the claims made by the revisionist regarding the absence of the departmental representative's endorsement on the order sheet.
- Lack of supporting evidence such as an affidavit or statement on oath from the departmental representative raised doubts about the revisionist's claims.

4. Legal Principles and Precedents:
- The Court emphasized the sanctity of recitals in judicial orders and the burden on parties challenging these recitals.
- Quoting precedents, the Court highlighted that statements in judgments are conclusive and cannot be contradicted except through the proper legal procedure of rectification.

5. Decision and Dismissal of Revisions:
- The Court found the revisions to be misconceived and dismissed them, emphasizing the lack of proper rectification procedures followed by the Department.
- The original records were ordered to be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal, and appropriate instructions for transmission of the records were directed to be issued by the Registrar General.

In conclusion, the Court's judgment dismissed the revisions based on the lack of substantiated claims and failure to follow proper legal procedures for rectification, highlighting the importance of upholding the sanctity of judicial orders and the need for due diligence in legal proceedings.