9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court may be pleased enough to adjudicate the questions of law framed in the instant revision and may further kindly be pleased enough to quash the judgment and order dated 16.04.2018 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow- 3, Lucknow under Section 31 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 om Misc Application No. 11/2016 as well as judgment and order dated 09.04.2016 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow-3, Lucknow in Second Appeal No. 146/2013 for the year 2008-09 as for it relates to failure of cancelling the tax amount of Rs. 7,24,551/- on purchases made from M/s Hina Timber treating the same as purchase from unregistered dealer." 3. Bereft of unnecessary details the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the following question of law: "vi. Whether the refusal to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 31 has not resulted in the miscarriage of justice and is a failure to exercise a jurisdiction duly vested by the authority of law?" 7. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the provision for filing of an application before learned Tribunal is given under Section 31 of the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008. The said provision nowhere restricts the power of learned Tribunal to only rectify the error apparent from the face of record with respect to ex-parte orders and thus learned Tribunal while passing the order impugned dated 16.04.2018 has patently erred in law in placing reliance on judgement of this Court in the case of M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06.06.2016 praying for rectification of error which application was filed under the provisions of Section 31 of the U.P. V.A.T., 2008. 13. For the sake of convenience the Section 31 of the Act, 2008 is reproduced below; "31. Rectification of mistakes (1) Any officer, authority, the Tribunal or the High Court may on its own motion or on the application of the dealer or any other interested person rectify any mistake apparent on the face of record, in any order passed by him under this Act, within three years from the date of the order sought to be rectified: Provided that where an application under this sub-section has been made within such period of three years, it may be disposed of even beyond such period: Provided further that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the dealer or any other interested person to rectify any mistake apparent on the face of record in any order passed under the provisions of the Act, 2008. Once no such restriction is contained under the provisions of the Section 31 of the Act 2008 as such it is apparent that learned Tribunal has patently erred in law in rejecting the said application vide the order dated 16.04.2018. 16. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the revision is partly allowed. The order dated 16.04.2018, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the revision, is set aside. 17. The matter is remitted to learned Tribunal to decide the application of the petitioner filed under Section 31 of the Act, 2008 in accordance with law and keeping in view the discussion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
