The Allahabad High Court quashed the order of Commercial Tax Tribunal for non-compliance of Rule 63(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 ( UPVAT Rules ).
The counsel for the revisionist contends that Section 57(8) of the U.P.V.A.T. Act, 2008 provides that the Tribunal may, if it has not already dismissed the appeal under Section 57(7) of the UPVAT Act 2008, after calling for and examining relevant records and after giving the parties reasonable opportunities of being heard or as the case may be after following the procedures prescribed under Section 57(5) (a) confirm the order, (b) set aside the order and (c) order such amount of tax to be refunded.
The argument of the counsel for the revisionist is that Tribunal has neither indicated the points for determination nor given any decision after noting the said points for determination or the reasons for such decision and consequently the impugned judgement would be against mandatory provisions of Section 57(8) read with 57(5) of the Act, 2008 and Rule 63(5) of the UPVAT Rules.
Rule 63(5) of the U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008 provides that a judgement and appeal shall be in writing and shall state (a) the points for determination, (b) the decision thereon and (c) the reason for such decision.
The Court noted that from perusal of Section 57 of the UPVAT Act, 2008 it emerged that the same pertains to Commercial Tax Tribunal. Section 57(5) of the UPVAT Act 2008 provides that the manner and procedure of summary disposal of appeal shall be as may be prescribed. Section 57(8) of the UPVAT Act, 2008 provides that the Tribunal after calling for and examining the relevant records and after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard or as the case may be after following the procedure prescribed in Section 57(8)(a) of the UPVAT Act, 2008 may confirm, cancel or vary such order or (b) set aside the order and direct the assessing or appellate or revising authority or the Commissioner to pass a fresh order or (c) order such amount of tax, fee etc realized in excess to be refunded.
A Single Bench of Justice Abdul Moin observed that “Accordingly, when the impugned judgement of learned Tribunal is seen in the context of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ved Ram (supra) vis a vis the provisions of Section 57(8) and Section 57(5) of the UPVAT Act, 2008 read with Rule 63(5) of the Rules, 2008 it clearly emerges that learned Tribunal has patently erred in neither noting the points for determination nor giving the reason for such decision thereon. Even though certain reasons are indicated in the impugned judgement, as emerge from a perusal of the said judgement, yet without determining the points for determination and the reasons for such decision thereon, it cannot be said that the judgement of learned Tribunal complies with the provisions of Rule 63(5) of the UPVAT Rules, 2008.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
