9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 185 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRejection of central sale made by the assessee - rejection of books of accounts - assessee had not filed the requisite documents before the Tribunal which was not in a position to decide the matter on merits - HELD THAT - The Tribunal is last fact finding Court and has to adjudicate all the grounds which are taken by the assessee in its appeal. During the pendency of the revisions this Court had required the revisionist to supply all the documents which were placed before the Tribunal through the supplementary affidavit and the same have been filed by the assessee. This Court finds that the disputed question of fact cannot be dealt with by this Court while exercising power under Section 58 of the U.P. VAT Act 2008 and it is for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter on merits - once the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the documents as required by it was not placed by the assessee and no finding has been recorded by the Tribunal considering the documents of the assessee. It would not be appropriate for this Court to adjudicate the matter on merits. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to reconsider and decide the matter afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Dispute over assessment year 2016-2017 related to central sales tax and UP VAT Act. 2. Failure to produce requisite documents before the Tribunal. 3. Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal due to lack of documents. 4. Contention regarding acceptance of Form-C and modification of orders. 5. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal as the last fact-finding court. Detailed Analysis: 1. The case involves a dispute concerning the assessment year 2016-2017, where a survey was conducted on the premises of the assessee engaged in the business of mobile, laptop, and computer sales. The central sales made by the assessee were not accepted, leading to a disagreement regarding the treatment of sales under the UP VAT Act. The assessing authority passed orders under the Central Sales Tax Act and UP VAT Act, which were challenged through appeals before the Additional Commissioner and subsequently before the Tribunal. 2. One of the key issues raised was the failure of the assessee to produce the necessary documents before the Tribunal for a proper adjudication of the matter. The Tribunal noted the absence of essential documents and subsequently dismissed the appeal based on this deficiency. 3. The revisionist contended that all relevant records were presented before the first appellate authority and the Tribunal, disputing the Tribunal's finding that the documents were not submitted. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was challenged on the grounds of the alleged submission of complete records. 4. The revisionist argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal and modifying the first appellate authority's order, particularly concerning the acceptance of Form-C documents. The contention was that the Tribunal's decision did not appropriately consider the benefit granted by the first appellate authority. 5. The High Court, in its analysis, emphasized the Tribunal's role as the final fact-finding authority and highlighted the importance of adjudicating all grounds raised by the assessee. The Court acknowledged its limitations under the U.P. VAT Act and the necessity for the Tribunal to assess the matter on its merits. Due to the absence of crucial documents before the Tribunal, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter for reconsideration, directing the assessee to submit all relevant documents promptly. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of all revisions, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review by the Tribunal based on the complete set of documents to ensure a fair and thorough decision-making process within a specified timeline.
|
