9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manded to the Tribunal on the above limited question to decide the same in accordance with law and, if necessary, by calling for an additional report of an independent handwriting expert, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Petition allowed accordingly - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 813 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2011 - PANKAJ MITHAL J. Ashok Kumar and Praveen Kumar for the petitioner The Standing Counsel for the respondent JUDGMENT The instant revision under section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 is directed against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated August 5, 2010 passed in Appeal No. 37 of 2009. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the District Industries Centre on the said date and, as such, it cannot be rejected as barred by time. An affidavit of the officer concerned who had received the application was also brought on record denying his signatures of having received the same. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated August 5, 2010 held that the application under section 22 of the Act for rectification of the eligibility certificate was maintainable but rejected the same as time-barred on the ground that no such application was filed within the prescribed period, i.e., three years. I have heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents. The only question of law which arises for con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he specimen signatures, meaning thereby that the application bears the signatures of Vishnu Kumar Chaurasia. There is no contrary opinion on record. The opinion of an handwriting expert is undoubtedly a relevant piece of evidence but the court is not bound by it. It has to give reason for accepting or discarding the report of an expert. It is equally well known that comparing of handwriting by the court is a hazardous job and it should not be resorted to without the aid of experts. In fact the court should avoid to assume the role of an expert. A plain reading of the impugned order of the Tribunal shows that the aforesaid report of the handwriting expert had not been considered and has been discarded solely on the ground that when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the opinion of the expert. The legal question formulated above is thus answered in favour of the revisionist and against the Department and it is held that the Tribunal was not correct in substituting its own opinion about the genuineness of the signatures discarding the opinion of the handwriting expert on the ground that it was the only opinion on record. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated August 5, 2010 only to the extent it rejects the application of the revisionist as barred by time on the ground that it was not submitted on August 12, 2000 as its receipt is not proved for the reason that it does not bear the signatures of the officer concerned, is set aside. The ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
