9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order was challenged nor it was complied with. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated June 13, 2001 is hereby set aside. The Tribunal is directed to decide the issue de novo on merit, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist, as per the spirit of the direction dated March 8, 2000, issued by the honourable High Court. - Trade Tax Revision No. 49 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 6-5-2013 - Dr. SATISH CHANDRA J. Akhilesh Sahai, Arti Gupta, N.C. Mishra and Chandra Has Misra for the petitioner. Sanjeev Shankhdhar, Standing Counsel, for the respondents. JUDGMENT By this revision, the revisionist has assailed 1 the impugned order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isionist is an association of the tent owners and it was created for the protection of the interest of its members and also to look the common business interest of its members, but the Tribunal vide its impugned order wrongly observed that there was no locus. But, it has the locus. 6. On the other hand Sri Sanjeev Shankhdhar, learned standing counsel justified the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 7. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that section 35 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act speaks about the opinion pertaining to the trade tax which can be obtained from the Commissioner. Section 35 of the Act is reproduced as under:- 35. Determination of disputed questions:- (1) If any question arises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even it was wrong. It was the pious duty of the authority concerned to obey the same or assail the same before the honourable apex court, but neither the order was challenged nor it was complied with. 10. Regarding section 35 of the Act, the honourable Allahabad High Court observed in the case of Jagan Lal and Shiv Charan Dass v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1981] UPTC 840 that only the question that has arisen can be adjudicated upon under section 35. The Commissioner can assume jurisdiction only on an application filed by a dealer or a person in respect of the items enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of section 35, and such question must arise otherwise than in a proceeding before a court or before an assessing authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
